[Meta] proposal — a flair for PeptideMeter posts
Housekeeping: proposal — a flair for PeptideMeter posts.
How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money on testing anyway.
Three tests on one lot tells you about your measurement. Three tests on three lots, spread over a year, tells you about a process. The second is the one worth paying for and it costs the same.
Buy small, keep the batch numbers, send one vial per lot, and post each one with the claim next to it. After four or five you have something no individual review can give you: a band, a direction and a date range. That is what the source pages are made of.
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.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
Nudging rather than removing: the standard template is in the sidebar and this post is missing the batch field.
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.
How many separate lots does your series cover?
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.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
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
GL Biochem BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Medutest came back 97.2% against a claimed 97.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
Cosigning on saying who paid.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period.
teodor_jansen is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
- 1Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A…9 comments in this branch · started by u/teodor_jansen