how much of what we believe about PeptideMeter actually comes from test results threads
how much of what we believe about PeptideMeter actually comes from test results threads. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
A single figure with no batch identifier is about a vial nobody can locate. Add the batch and it becomes about a lot. Add the claimed figure from the certificate and it becomes a comparison. Add the service and the date and it becomes reproducible. Say that you paid for it yourself and it becomes independent.
Five extra fields, thirty seconds of typing, and the difference between a comment and a row in the log that will still be useful in three years.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.
[deleted]
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
- 1Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.6 comments in this branch · started by u/peptidemeter_pat