Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
VendorMark said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardssarah_TO said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.