the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real, someone check my working
😂10👍10🧊6
#test-results 2026-06-26
Friday42 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- rowan_reads — the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real, someone check my working 19:08
- apnoea_down_two — my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more 19:31
- retention_time — coming back to this underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure 19:56
- taper_tess — is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled 20:11
- mg_per_ml — sorry to jump in my sheet has 2 lots from QST with a spread under a point, which is tight 20:33
attach the pdf
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
📉16📈11✅1
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
one data point
99 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
coming back to this underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
lot-log.csv
637 rows · not retained in the public archive
👀11👍10
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
❤️9
thats not great
💀10
posting my Medutest result on lot SG-1177, what do people make of it
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
[edited]👍13💀1📉11
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
*PeptideMeter not the other one
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
nice result
sorry to jump in my sheet has 2 lots from QST with a spread under a point, which is tight
janoshik-a-2418.pdf
2 pages · 84 KB · not retained in the public archive
test it again
🔥15👍1
i told Homopeptide about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due, anyway
coming back after 5 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
when did you buy it
thats within range
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
*PeptideMeter not the other one
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
which lab
slightly off topic but thats a fill problem
my sheet has 2 lots from GL Biochem with a spread under a point, which is tight
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
weigh it first
whats the lot
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
ok so certificate said 98.1 and the independent came back 97.4, is that a problem
selection bias
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, i have it written down somewhere
[edited]log the boring ones
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them