GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
904
c/trialwatch·posted 6 months ago by u/tove_ogunleye

genuine question about hazard ratio that I am slightly embarrassed to ask

Readout Clean Column ×3 Long Haul ×2

FLOW. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.

Everything else people worry about in c/coa is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort FLOW out first, and almost nobody does.

I say this having got it wrong for 10 months. My A1c was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.

6,975 up / 6,071 down53% upvoted41 commentsid 30uf1k11 Jan 2026

41 comments

18 in this archive, depth 5

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/oskar_ibarra75 points·6 months ago

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

replysharereportpermalink
u/tb500_tangent0 points·6 months ago

No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.

replysharereportpermalink
u/line_demir44 points·6 months ago

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data

replysharereportpermalink
u/hugo_bergstrom0 points·6 months ago

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

replysharereportpermalink
u/cesar_ivaturi0 points·6 months ago·edited

dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_ferreira1 point·6 months ago

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

replysharereportpermalink
u/nils_tulloch33 points·6 months ago

This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hub_opssite staff7 points·6 months ago·edited

SELECT reported a hazard ratio hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.

replysharereportpermalink
u/tove_ogunleyeOP4 points·6 months ago

SELECT reported a SELECT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.

replysharereportpermalink
u/tove_ogunleyeOP3 points·6 months ago

SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nordic_pricing3 points·6 months ago·edited

number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect

replysharereportpermalink
u/valeria_karlsen2 points·6 months ago

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

replysharereportpermalink
u/milos_vanhecke1 point·6 months ago

phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial

replysharereportpermalink
u/hazard_ratio_halstats26 points·6 months ago

Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/tomas_kimani9 points·6 months ago

Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]10 points·6 months ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/renal_outcomes_rnephro-curious12 points·6 months ago

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/curious_panel_only4 points·6 months ago

phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
About c/trialwatch

Clinical trial reading group. New readouts, protocol amendments, endpoint definitions, dropout handling, and the difference between a press release and a publication. Absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat are house dialect here.

34kmembers
95submissions
Nov 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
c/trialwatch rules
  1. Press-release-only posts must be flaired Press Release until a publication exists.
  2. Give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body.
  3. Relative risk reduction alone is not a result. Show the absolute numbers.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several 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.