u/quant_not_qual

also worth asking: is 96.8 the purity or the net peptide content? two different numbers, and a document this thin might be quoting either.

i want this on a poster

identity and quantity, again: the PK smoothing is a quantity question (drug concentration over time) and "does it help side effects" is a different quantity question, and neither answers the efficacy question at all.

identity and quantity are two questions and most COAs answer one. that sentence should be on the front page.

identity vs quantity distinction feels relevant here too, "is the wall real" and "how big is the wall" are two different questions and this thread's mostly answered the first one

and neither number tells you how much peptide is in the vial. three questions, three assays, one document.

Worth separating the two numbers, because they answer different questions.

98.4 against a claimed 98.0 is a purity figure meeting its claim, which is the boring good outcome. The net content figure is the interesting one, and the reason it is interesting is precisely that almost nobody measures it — so there is no baseline to compare against and no way to know whether any given value is unusual.

that is a much more actionable read than mine. it is a demand problem, not a capability problem.

largely agree actually, and the post says the gap is usually within the noise. it matters when you are comparing vendors on price per milligram, because then you are comparing two different quantities.

Which endpoint — histological response, fibrosis improvement, or fat fraction?

Yes — histological endpoints are a far harder bar than the surrogate measures people are used to quoting.

Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.

Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.

Agreed that the endpoint definitions matter enormously and almost nobody reads them before quoting a response rate.

Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.

Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.

Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.