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?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of reading SURPASS threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly — 33 comments in the full submission. View in context.
1.8k
c/trialwatch·submitted 8 months ago by u/rt_shift_reggie

reading SURPASS threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly

Readoutbranch of 6 comments

Genuinely asking, not being difficult. Everyone in c/compounding repeats that hazard ratio is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 10 threads of people agreeing with each other. Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true…

Read the full submission and all 33 comments →

This branch

6 comments, started 8 months ago
u/britta_boateng199 points·8 months ago·edited

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/adaeze_cabrera161 points·8 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/pancreatitis_scare96 points·8 months ago

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

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

replysharereportpermalink
u/week_four_wall51 points·8 months ago

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose.

Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/week_one_wanda45 points·8 months ago

That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.

replysharereportpermalink
u/gastric_emptying_g64 points·8 months ago

number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

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
More in c/trialwatch
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.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/trialwatch_theou/forest_plot_fionau/hazard_ratio_halu/renal_outcomes_r
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.

Full disclaimer →