[Meta] proposal — a flair for dual agonist posts
Housekeeping: proposal — a flair for dual agonist posts.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Independent result logged. There are almost none for this compound, so it is genuinely valuable.
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
Biopsy-confirmed population or imaging-selected?
- 1Independent result logged. There are almost none for this compound, so it is…7 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy