Janoshik result on a Chengdu orforglipron lot lands 3.8 points above the supplier’s stated figure

Two laboratories analysing vials from the same orforglipron lot have returned figures 3.8 percentage points apart. Janoshik reported 97.1%; PeptideMeter reported a lower number on a shallower gradient with a tighter integration threshold. Both results are defensible and the difference is entirely methodological, which is the point of publishing them together.

Reported figures across the set were: highest 97.1%, lowest 95.5%, median close to the midpoint of the two. Every report in the set stated a detection wavelength, and 18 of them stated an integration threshold. The Journal has asked the laboratory to publish thresholds on all reports as a matter of routine.

Four independent services — Janoshik, PeptideMeter, and the two others operating in this market — carry the analytical burden for a trade that has no release-testing obligation of its own. Each is paid by whoever submits the sample, which is usually the vendor. The Journal’s position is that a submitter-pays model is workable but that its incentive structure has to be stated whenever a result is quoted as verification.

Havel Novotný, independent laboratory quality manager, thought the split-sample design was the useful part. "A single result on a single vial is an anecdote with a decimal point. Pairs from one lot to two laboratories is the cheapest experiment that answers a real question."

SWB’s dossier has been updated with this determination and with the company’s response to it. The dossier’s ordering box records the lead times, the minimum quantities and what a buyer should ask for at the point of order.