Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

anders_CPH said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again.