[Stats] relative risk reduction sells papers, absolute risk reduction makes decisions
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
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
Adding to this: SURMOUNT is doing more work than the comment implies.
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
STEP 1 readout: 98.6% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
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 endpoint endpoints
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 5 weeks to accept.
SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
- 1fair enough7 comments in this branch · started by u/oskar_ibarra
- 2Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on…5 comments in this branch · started by u/rania_salinas