someone explain HPLC to me like I have not read a paper in years
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom. I have been tracking method development against eGFR for 5 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here. Caveats up front: one person, one lab,…
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
instrument quality is less important than analyst consistency
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
the gradient is doing the separation work, not the column alone
integration decision on a shoulder changes your number by half a point on its own
instrument quality is less important than analyst consistency
a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful
two labs, two different baselines, two different purity numbers, both honest
Ran the same vial on two columns, different purity, both right, different separation. Method matters more than equipment.
Ran the same vial on two columns, different purity, both right, different separation.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
related substances are where the story lives, not the main peak
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.