switched from 7.5mg to 15mg and the the food-noise thing got better, not worse
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking test results against eGFR for 15 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
The Janoshik result at 96.8% was below the 96.2% claim. GGPeps retested at their cost and came back 96.8%. Logged as resolved.
inter-lab variance is real, 3 points is inside normal
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
MKM / BPC / batch 20 / PeptideMeter / 97.6% — that is the shape
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
[deleted]
GGPeps claimed 94.2%, Janoshik came back 96.2%. 2 points is inter-lab variance, no drama.
GGPeps claimed 94.2%, Janoshik came back 96.2%.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 54 weeks to accept.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
sample of one, say so
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
This result fits the template perfectly.
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 99.0% on the same vial is normal.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
This result fits the template perfectly.
Adding to this: batch is doing more work than the comment implies.
Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 97.9. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
MKM product, Medutest test, 98.1% result, batch 18, 15 days in transit. Logged.
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
This result fits the template perfectly.
Adding to this: batch is doing more work than the comment implies.
reship and retest is the honest way to handle a low result
Yeah, the Medutest number matching the claim is the actual signal.
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
KP / BPC / batch 21 / Janoshik / 98.3% — that is the shape
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
- 1This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please…12 comments in this branch · started by u/peptidemeter_pat
- 2MKM product, Medutest test, 98.1% result, batch 18, 15 days in transit.…8 comments in this branch · started by u/valeria_girard