[Question] PeptideMeter — what am I missing here
Right, the purity question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 5 data points over 26 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 23, not week 72. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
BCH product, PeptideMeter test, 94.2% result, batch 22, 39 days in transit. Logged.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Which Medutest service and what method did they use?
Which Medutest service and what method did they use?
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Is that 98.1% area or mass?
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
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.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
[deleted]
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
multiple batches from Homopeptide show a spread, that is the data
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts
Adding to this: below spec is doing more work than the comment implies.
Batch number? Date of test?
inter-lab variance is real, 15 points is inside normal
sample of one, say so
Slight fix: the number was 94.2, not 95.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.
- 1Is that 98.1% area or mass?11 comments in this branch · started by u/hedda_aguirre
- 2template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result9 comments in this branch · started by u/meera_sandvik