BiostatsBrad said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
BiostatsBrad said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
BiostatsBrad said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding 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.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer. Nothing about my case changed; only who was doing the talking.