Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.

Happy to go further on any of that.

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?

ingrid_STO said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

Pushing back on ingrid_STO here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

ingrid_STO said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.