my hs-CRP moved and I cannot work out whether FLOW is why
Right, the SURMOUNT question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 23 data points over 10 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 64, not week 18. 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
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
the 2 week readout is different from the 21 week readout
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
Small correction: the trial was 13 weeks, not 6. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
[deleted]
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Disagree on that part. 98.0% and 98.1% on the same vial is normal.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
Adding to this: SELECT is doing more work than the comment implies.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
press release hazard ratio posts must be flaired until a publication exists
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
That is net peptide content, not purity.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 73 weeks to accept.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
Phase 2 or phase 3?
the 18 week readout is different from the 27 week readout
the 5 week readout is different from the 6 week readout
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURMOUNT endpoints
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
- 1Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.19 comments in this branch · started by u/cesar_ivaturi
- 2Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.5 comments in this branch · started by u/hazard_ratio_hal