[Lab] 18th independent test on GL Biochem — 99.5% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
18th independent test on GL Biochem — 99.5% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part, and before anyone asks: same batch throughout, single submission, no cherry-picking between services. 99.5% and 99.0%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour. Split one vial between…
How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money on testing anyway.
Three tests on one lot tells you about your measurement. Three tests on three lots, spread over a year, tells you about a process. The second is the one worth paying for and it costs the same.
Buy small, keep the batch numbers, send one vial per lot, and post each one with the claim next to it. After four or five you have something no individual review can give you: a band, a direction and a date range. That is what the source pages are made of.
[deleted]
Area percent or net peptide content?
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
Area percent or net peptide content?
clara_weiss is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
How many separate lots does your series cover?
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
say whether you paid for it yourself
three lots beats three tests on one lot
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.