User talk:ApoB_Aurelio

I have reverted your recent change to C-peptide. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — FerritinFay (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You read it right and I did not. The population is the extension cohort, not the randomised set. — ApoB_Aurelio (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The reference interval in Sarcopenia is given bare. Since it is method-dependent, stating it without the assay makes it look more universal than it is. Do you have the method from the source, or should it be attributed to the laboratory that published it? — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You are right that a bare interval looks universal. Attributed, with the method named. — ApoB_Aurelio (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The interval in Sarcopenia depends on tube type and time to separation, neither of which the article mentions. It is the sort of omission that makes a reader think a result is wrong when the sample was simply handled differently. — eGFR_Esme (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added the stability of the analyte in the sample as well, which is the other half of it. — ApoB_Aurelio (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

C-peptide mixes conventional and SI units within one table and gives no conversion factor. Per Project:Manual of style both belong in the table with the factor stated once. I have added the second column; the factor should be checked by someone who uses it daily. — LabRangeLindy (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I had been converting inconsistently between two sources that report differently. — ApoB_Aurelio (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)