the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
#test-results 2026-03-12
Thursday44 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- salt_bridge — coming back after 15 months with a follow up result, where do i put it 22:35
- monoisotopic — i told SWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have… 22:47
- warsaw_vial — if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1 23:07
- salt_bridge — slightly off topic but 99.2 against a certificate of 96.8 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question 23:17
- courier_vs_post — do you test every order or sample it 23:44
nice result
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
quick one i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
log the boring ones
🔥15🧪16📉10
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
update on the earlier thing certificate said 96.8 and the independent came back 99.4, is that a problem
⚠️6👀2
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
log the lot number
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
lot-log.csv
429 rows · not retained in the public archive
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
nausea_windowweigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
unrelated but a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
thats not great
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
selection bias
coming back after 15 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
medutest-report-c-4402.pdf
3 pages · 341 KB · not retained in the public archive
📉4
update from 2 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
[edited]my sheet has 9 lots from MKM with a spread under a point, which is tight
attach the pdf
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
👍1📈7
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
which lab
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
i told SWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
when did you buy it
weigh it first
🙏5❤️3
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
whats the lot
😂15📈16✅12
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
✅10⚠️1
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
thats a fill problem
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture, your mileage will differ
slightly off topic but 99.2 against a certificate of 96.8 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
💀6🎉1📈18
thats within range
genuine question quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, still working it out
one data point
⚠️1🎉7🔥15
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
posting my PeptideMeter result on lot A-2418, what do people make of it
😂6