GenomicsKate said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
Following on from GenomicsKate — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsVendorMark said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Pushing back on VendorMark here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
VendorMark said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
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.