PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

Why do two papers on REDEFINE-1 report different headline figures?

Asked 4 Apr 2024Modified 2.3 years agoViewed 5.8k times
This question was closed as primarily opinion-based.Closed 14 May 2024. Answers already posted are preserved; new answers are not accepted. Questions here need a factual basis on which they can be answered.
12

I have the full paper rather than the abstract, and the supplementary appendix.

I suspect the usual explanation for this is wrong, or at least incomplete.

I am aware this may have a boring answer. I would still like the boring answer stated clearly.

What is actually going on here, physically?

clinical-trials
clinical-trials

Reading the primary literature properly: estimands, intention-to-treat versus per-protocol, confidence intervals, absolute versus relative…

913 questionsdosing-math
dosing-math

The arithmetic itself: milligrams to millilitres to insulin units, concentration after reconstitution, dose per draw, and vial-days per vial. Show…

811 questionssemaglutide
semaglutide

A GLP-1 receptor agonist with a fatty-acid-acylated backbone and a roughly one-week half-life, marketed for type 2 diabetes and for weight…

360 questionsglucagon-receptor
glucagon-receptor

Glucagon receptor agonism as a deliberate component of dual and tri-agonists: what it adds in energy expenditure and hepatic fat mobilisation, and…

14 questions
shareeditfollowflag
TH
askedthreadlock714k264 Apr 2024

No answers yet

This question has not been answered. It has been viewed 5.8k times, which suggests the question is of interest and the answer is not obvious. If you can answer it with a source or a worked calculation, it will be read. See how to ask and answer.
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich - Certified Reference Materials

Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.

Shop standards

Your answer

Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.

Not medical advice. Research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.