Measuring more frequently generates more flags and not more information
What the pivotal programmes measured and how often, which is a more defensible template than most published monitoring schedules.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Rodent C-cell findings, the human data, and what the boxed warning is actually based on.
What the pivotal programmes measured and how often, which is a more defensible template than most published monitoring schedules.
Every additional analyte raises the probability of a flagged result and lowers the average information content of the panel.
What the trials measured, which in the case of micronutrients is very little.
Almost every misreading of a laboratory panel is a misunderstanding of what a reference interval is and how much a result has to move before the movement means anything.
The argument for a baseline panel is that it makes every subsequent result interpretable. The argument against frequent monitoring is that noise accumulates faster than…
The arithmetic of the reference change value, worked for the analytes that matter here.
Reduced intake is a plausible mechanism for deficiency. Reduced absorption is not, and the two are conflated in most of the advice.
Reduced intake is a plausible mechanism for deficiency. Reduced absorption is not, and the two are conflated in most of the advice.
Two sources of noise sit under every number: how reproducible the assay is, and how much the analyte varies within the same person on the same day.
Two sources of noise sit under every number: how reproducible the assay is, and how much the analyte varies within the same person on the same day.
Which markers are informative, which are confounded, and which move for reasons unrelated to nutrition.
Timing is the whole of the post-cessation panel: draw it too early and it measures the treatment period.
A twelve-analyte panel in a perfectly healthy person has roughly even odds of producing at least one flagged result.
A flag is a probability statement about a population. It is not a statement about the person holding the printout.
What the pivotal programmes measured and how often, which is a more defensible template than most published monitoring schedules.
What the pivotal programmes measured and how often, which is a more defensible template than most published monitoring schedules.
What the renal and hepatic outcome programmes actually measured, and over what duration.
The estimated glomerular filtration rate is calculated from creatinine, creatinine comes from muscle, and muscle mass is falling. The arithmetic is unforgiving.
The assay is not the problem. The interpretation of a lagging integral as a current measurement is the problem.
Estimated glomerular filtration rate is a calculation with muscle mass in the denominator of its assumptions. In this population that matters.