KevinCompounds said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Coming at KevinCompounds’s question from a different direction. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
One concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Following on from KevinCompounds — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PeteFamMed said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Dr.PeteFamMed said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.