The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
bri_stats said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from bri_stats, 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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsbri_stats said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
bri_stats said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.