help me understand endpoint, I have read the wiki twice
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/compounding repeats that hazard ratio is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 6 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 18–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the FLOW endpoints
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
press release SURMOUNT posts must be flaired until a publication exists
STEP 1 readout: 99.2% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
What was the dropout rate?
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURMOUNT endpoints
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
Crossposting this to c/bloodwork because the people who need it are not reading this community.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
the 12 week readout is different from the 18 week readout
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
- 1STEP 1 readout: 99.2% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread…7 comments in this branch · started by u/injection_site_iris
- 2Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.7 comments in this branch · started by u/yusuf_achebe