three years of integration threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Been lurking in c/progresspics for about 17 months and finally have something worth posting.
Short version: week 39, 12.5mg, and chromatogram is the bit I still cannot get a straight answer on. I have read the wiki, I have read the last 23 threads, and the answers split roughly down the middle.
What I actually want to know is whether the people saying it does not matter have measured it, or whether it is just repeated confidently. Happy to be told I am overthinking this — I probably am — but I would rather overthink it now than at week 33.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The related substances profile is way more interesting than the main peak %. A 98% with 13 peaks is different from a 98% that is one 25% impurity.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful
Detection wavelength? method development and that changes at different wavelengths.
Gradient goblin mode: changed the solvent composition 18 times, finally got good resolution on a integration peak.
state the method: column, gradient, detection wavelength, injection volume
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
two labs, two different baselines, two different purity numbers, both honest
a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful
Yeah, the chromatogram profile matters more than the headline number.
The related substances profile is way more interesting than the main peak %. A 98% with 7 peaks is different from a 98% that is one 16% impurity.
related substances are where the story lives, not the main peak
a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful
instrument quality is less important than analyst consistency
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Small correction: the trial was 9 weeks, not 7. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
integration decision on a shoulder changes your number by half a point on its own
the gradient is doing the separation work, not the column alone
Not to be pedantic but chromatogram and HPLC are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
- 1Yeah, the chromatogram profile matters more than the headline number.6 comments in this branch · started by u/hydration_hank
- 2I am going to push back on this slightly.5 comments in this branch · started by u/careful_gradient