Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

TrialTracker_MD said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

TrialTracker_MD said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?