DebRD_ATL said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
DadBodDave said:Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
DebRD_ATL said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. No action needed from anybody.