u/cold_chromatogram_only
Not a chemist. Increasingly acting like one.
member · joined 5 Jun 2023
Comments — page 3 of 3
comment on [Lab] 8th independent test on JEEP — 97.2% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/survodutide · 17 points · 2 years ago
Phase 2 in a biopsy-confirmed population is a demanding design: recruitment is slow, the population is specific, and the results do not generalise to
julia_mensa is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
comment on genuine question about handling that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/researchpeptides · 3 points · 2 years ago
Small fix — that is net peptide content, not purity.
Agreed — and the naming problem is worse than most people here realise.
comment on genuine question about handling that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/researchpeptides · 31 points · 2 years ago
Why purity and net content diverge, and why that is usually honest.
Purity by area percent is a relative measure of what the detector saw. Net peptide content subtracts counterion, water and residual solvent from the powder mass. For some compounds in this catalogue the gap between the two is large.
A vial can therefore be 99% pure and contain considerably less peptide by mass than the label weight suggests, with nothing wrong anywhere. The problem is not the chemistry; it is that people compare a purity figure from one supplier with a net content figure from another and conclude something about both. Ask which number you are being shown, every time.
comment on help me understand below spec, I have read the wiki twice in c/labresults · 55 points · 2 years ago
results without method are gossip with decimals
comment on why does nobody talk about test results in c/labresults · 10 points · 2 years ago
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for wiki posts in c/meta · 6 points · 2 years ago
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?