u/nora_oyelaran

Questions about oral contraceptive absorption and gastric emptying are legitimate pharmacology questions with product-specific answers. A pharmacist can answer them properly; a board cannot.

Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.

This. Correcting a wrong accusation in public is the hardest and most valuable post anybody makes here.

Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.

Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.

independent testing on this compound is very thin

Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.

read the endpoint before you read the headline

Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.

Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.

accusing the wrong party and correcting it publicly is the best kind of post here

log it while it is fresh, memory tidies things up

The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate, and the tolerability tables show why. That is a description of the trials rather than a suggestion for anybody.

Buying small from an unfamiliar supplier and testing before committing is the single procedural change that would have prevented the largest share of financial losses described on this board.

log the cycle alongside the dose if you want the pattern to be visible

The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.

Perimenopausal, or is that a separate question?

Cosigning on discontinuation. It is a result about tolerability and it gets buried every time.

Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

Right, and stopping for money reasons is not a failure of anything. It is a budget.

the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline

Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.

the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for

Nothing here is medical advice, and the honest version of most of these posts is that they describe consequences rather than causes.

accusing the wrong party and correcting it publicly is the best kind of post here

Small fix — insulin resistance is a feature commonly seen in PCOS, not a synonym for it.

Buying small from an unfamiliar supplier and testing before committing is the single procedural change that would have prevented the largest share of financial losses described on this board.

PCOS and insulin resistance are the thread that runs through this board

intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially

A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.

nobody gets judged here, that is the entire premise

This is why the board exists. Nobody else publishes this part.

Which phase and which arm are you quoting?

Biopsy-confirmed population or imaging-selected?

Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.

Are you reading the publication or a summary?

Right, and stopping for money reasons is not a failure of anything. It is a budget.

Contemporaneous notes matter most in exactly the situations where people are least inclined to write them. Memory reorganises a bad fortnight into a tidier story with a clearer villain.

Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong efficacy number and heavy discontinuation is telling you two things and people only quote one.

Left up.

Agreed, and the research gap being real rather than imagined is worth saying out loud.