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 what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio — 34 comments in the full submission. View in context.
1.3k
c/trialwatch·submitted 1 year ago by u/rulebook_rachael

what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio

Paperbranch of 10 comments

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…

Read the full submission and all 34 comments →

This branch

10 comments, started 1 year ago
u/laila_almeida121 points·1 year ago

The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.

replysharereportpermalink
u/prior_auth_painappeals33 points·1 year ago

Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.

replysharereportpermalink
u/karl_fischer_kev8 points·1 year ago

absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide

replysharereportpermalink
u/rulebook_rachaelOPmod · c/meta0 points·1 year ago

Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.

replysharereportpermalink
u/curious_panel_only6 points·1 year ago

number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect

replysharereportpermalink
u/arne_ilunga1 point·1 year ago

number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect

Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/draw_up_dizzy30 points·1 year ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]14 points·1 year ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/yara_bakken-16 points·1 year ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/gastric_emptying_g1 point·1 year ago

Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 97.4. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

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
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.