[Lab] SSA BPC — Medutest came back 98.1% against a claimed 97.5%
The claim in the title is exactly the claim I am making: SSA BPC — Medutest came back 98.1% against a claimed 97.5%. Nothing implied beyond it.
To save the first four comments: 98.1% and 97.5%.
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.
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
- SSSSA source pageShanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 90% here, rank 17 · shop at shanghaisigmaaudley.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
FGP BPC, batch matched the paperwork, PeptideMeter came back 98.2% against a claimed 97.5%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
Results here feed the vendor source pages, which is why the fields are fussy.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Nudging rather than removing: the standard template is in the sidebar and this post is missing the batch field.
Nudging rather than removing: the standard template is in the sidebar and this post is missing the batch field.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
Area percent or net peptide content?
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
area percent unless the report says otherwise
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result is evidence about two years ago and should be read that way.
Split one vial between Medutest and PeptideMeter. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
Same. The WXT results have been sitting in a tight band across lots, which is the useful shape.
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.
date of analysis matters as much as the number
Same.
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.