A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
hank_denver said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
hank_denver said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardshank_denver said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.