what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio
Right, the TRIUMPH question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 6 data points over 34 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 38, not week 87. 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
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with endpoint, not with what you concluded.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the STEP endpoints
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
[removed by moderator]
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 97.4. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURPASS endpoints
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
STEP 1 readout: 96.2% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
SELECT reported a TRIUMPH hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Not to be pedantic but hazard ratio and FLOW are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
- 1The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after…10 comments in this branch · started by u/laila_almeida
- 2Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.8 comments in this branch · started by u/rohan_cardoso