lucas_SP_BR said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
GenomicsKate said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsGenomicsKate said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
Closing the loop on my own question.
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.