Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
josh_phd_bmore said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsLindaRN_retired said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.