GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Question] Janoshik — what am I missing here — 36 comments in the full submission. View in context.
3.4k
c/labresults·submitted 1 year ago by u/teodor_jansen

[Question] Janoshik — what am I missing here

Discussionbranch of 6 comments

Slightly embarrassed to be asking this, but: Janoshik — what am I missing here. A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions. Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result…

Read the full submission and all 36 comments →

This branch

6 comments, started 1 year ago
u/nayeli_iyer574 points·1 year ago

If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.

replysharereportpermalink
u/camila_mensa844 points·1 year ago

The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yara_bakken560 points·1 year ago

Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ravi_sandvik646 points·1 year ago

one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence

replysharereportpermalink
u/honest_syringe303 points·1 year ago

one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence

Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.

replysharereportpermalink
u/meera_sandvik208 points·1 year ago

inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/labresults

A running record of independent test results people paid for themselves. Every post follows the same shape: vendor, product, batch, testing service, method, and the number. Good results and bad results are equally welcome and get equal scrutiny.

44kmembers
95submissions
Oct 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
c/labresults rules
  1. Template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result. Freeform posts get removed with a template reply.
  2. Do not editorialise in the title. Put the number in the title and the opinion in the body.
  3. Sample of one. Say so.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.