Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
dan_philly said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdan_philly said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
dan_philly said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.