Dr.PulmRoch said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from Dr.PulmRoch, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Dr.PulmRoch said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Dr.PulmRoch said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Taking it to my next appointment.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
MASHdoc_SA said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.