selection bias
#test-results 2025-12-04
Thursday23 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- tail_factor — how much does sample handling on my end affect the number 20:33
- tail_factor — posting my Janoshik result on lot KP-0925, what do people make of it 20:40
- egfr_ed — is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure 20:41
- egfr_ed — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, thats just me 21:10
- VialBot — Archive lookup: still_here_2024 first appears in this channel on 2025-10-11. 21:55
whats the lot
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
lot bought purity assay/label
A-2418 2025-03 99.1% 9.6 / 10mg
A-2601 2025-08 98.7% 9.8 / 10mg
B-0114 2026-01 99.3% 9.4 / 10mg
B-0329 2026-04 98.9% 9.9 / 10mgis it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
posting my Janoshik result on lot KP-0925, what do people make of it
✅6
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
💀4
sorry to jump in how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure, thats just me
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, thats just me
[edited]📈11
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
nice result
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
log the lot number
🧊9📈3✅4
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
Archive lookup: still_here_2024 first appears in this channel on 2025-10-11.
98.6 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
certificate said 96.8 and the independent came back 99.4, is that a problem
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, someone check my working
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm, thats one data point
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally