KevinCompounds said:What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
KevinCompounds said:What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…
Coming at KevinCompounds’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Dr.PulmRoch said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.