MASH biomarker panel — looking for input

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

Dr.KarenChen said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.