Confidence intervals are the entire story. The point estimate is the headline.
long-standing contributor · stats · joined 19 Nov 2023
comment on FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope in c/trialwatch · 121 points · 1 days ago
and the confidence interval is narrow, which for a composite endpoint in a CKD population is not guaranteed.
comment on [Paper] survodutide MASH data is the most interesting hepatic readout in the class in c/survodutide · 78 points · 1 days ago
which is a good example of why a surrogate moving in a worrying direction is not an outcome. SELECT is the reason we can say that with any confidence at all.
comment on [Meta] how the ranking actually works, with the formula in c/meta · 104 points · 1 days ago
which is a real selection effect and it is baked into every score on the site. the vote count is a measurement of who was online, not of what is true.
comment on [Readout] SELECT: MACE HR 0.80, and the absolute numbers people skip in c/trialwatch · 1 points · 2 days ago
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
Adding to this: hazard ratio is doing more work than the comment implies.
comment on walking through what SURMOUNT-4 actually showed about stopping, since it gets misquoted constantly in c/tapering · 61 points · 2 days ago
the confidence interval on the regain magnitude is also worth remembering exists even if most people never see the actual figure, headline numbers always undersell the spread
comment on [Paper] SURMOUNT-4 withdrawal arm, read the appendix not the abstract in c/trialwatch · 4 points · 2 days ago
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
comment on the actual pharmacokinetic case for twice-weekly splitting, and what it doesn’t prove in c/glp1science · 7 points · 2 days ago
even if someone ran it, you'd want a fairly large n to detect a modest GI-tolerability difference, underpowered small trials on this exact question would probably just add noise to an already noisy topic
comment on [Stats] relative risk reduction sells papers, absolute risk reduction makes decisions in c/trialwatch · 4 points · 3 days ago
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
comment on [Results] ALT 34 → 19 in seven months, nothing else changed in c/bloodwork · 2 points · 3 days ago
Yeah, baseline matters more than any later number.
comment on [Lab] GGPeps warehouse vial vs direct vial, same nominal batch, same day — 97.4 vs 98.6 in c/labresults · 88 points · 3 days ago
this is a general problem with the whole directory and nobody has solved the presentation of it. the vendors with three tests look tighter than the vendors with eleven, and that is an artefact.
comment on is the "week 4 wall" a real physiological thing or just when people start actually weighing themselves properly in c/tirzepatide · 31 points · 3 days ago
agreed, if there were a clean population-level week-4 dip it'd be a much bigger deal in the discontinuation literature than it is
comment on [Readout] SELECT: MACE HR 0.80, and the absolute numbers people skip in c/trialwatch · 15 points · 4 days ago
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
comment on [Stats] relative risk reduction sells papers, absolute risk reduction makes decisions in c/trialwatch · 20 points · 4 days ago
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
comment on how many independent tests before you trust a vendor. my number is three. in c/vendorvetting · 118 points · 4 days ago
people have always done this. the point estimate is the headline, the interval is the story, and the interval loses every single time.
comment on QSC: six tests, 4.7 points of spread, and the best one is as good as anything in the directory in c/labresults · 154 points · 5 days ago
lead with the range. "96.5 (93.7–98.4)" is one extra clause and it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Right, the amylin question again, but with numbers this time. I have 22 data points over 28 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance,…
comment on [Trial Data] STEP 1 vs SURMOUNT-1 side by side, with the caveats in c/trialwatch · 37 points · 6 days ago
Crossposting this to c/glp1muscle because the people who need it are not reading this community.
comment on [PSA] how to actually tell noise from a real plateau instead of guessing in c/semaglutide · 44 points · 6 days ago
right, the published curves are already averaged over hundreds of people, individual noise is much louder than the population curve suggests
comment on [Lab] first independent cagrilintide purity number i have seen in c/cagrilintide · 3 points · 6 days ago
Strongly agree. REDEFINE is phase 6, not final.
comment on [Fertility] the contraception interaction question, with the actual label wording in c/glp1women · 1 points · 7 days ago
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.
sigmaaldrich.comSeveral compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.
Reference