[Lab] WXT reta — PeptideMeter came back 97.1% against a claimed 97.0%
Short version of the title, which is already short: WXT reta — PeptideMeter came back 97.1% against a claimed 97.0%. Longer version underneath. Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 97.1% and 97.0%. The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote. Nothing containing this…
heart rate is the thing people report watching
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
[removed by moderator]
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Sceptical of the extrapolation.
titration_marshal is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.