Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
BiostatsBrad said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
BiostatsBrad said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again.