Medutest — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right
Medutest — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.
WXT BPC, batch matched the paperwork, PeptideMeter came back 98.2% against a claimed 97.5%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result is evidence about two years ago and should be read that way.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log. Thanks for paying for it and posting it.
The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before.
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
three lots beats three tests on one lot
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.
[deleted]
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
area percent unless the report says otherwise
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
Area percent or net peptide content?
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.
- 1the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure7 comments in this branch · started by u/plateau_patrol
- 2Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it…6 comments in this branch · started by u/aurel_mwangi