DanielChem_CHI said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
DanielChem_CHI said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.NutriCornell said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Dr.NutriCornell said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.