One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
One thing that is still open after TrialNerd_Beth’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
wendy_avl said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently from wendy_avl, on substance rather than tone. 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.
Worth separating that from the pharmacology, 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 Standardswendy_avl said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Worth separating that from the pharmacology, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly. The point about trough rather than peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.