DebRD_ATL said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
DadBodDave said:Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.
DebRD_ATL said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. No action needed from anybody.