User talk:GIP_Genoveva

Two findings in Gastric emptying are from rodent work and the sentences do not say so. The section heading does, but headings do not travel when a paragraph is quoted or moved. I have named the species in both sentences. — ProglucagonPia (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done the same for the third finding in the section, which had the same problem. — GIP_Genoveva (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The categories on Incretin effect and Prescribing information disagree about where the topic sits. Both are defensible; having both is not, because the two articles then never appear in the same listing. Could you take a view on the talk page of whichever you know better? — ThymosinTamsin (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair. Both are defensible and the deciding argument is that a reader looking for one expects to find the other in the same listing. — GIP_Genoveva (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Glucagon-like peptide-1 gives concentrations without saying whether they are of the intact hormone or of total immunoreactivity. The two differ by a large factor and the assays are not interchangeable. Does the source specify? — LCellLeif (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You are right that they are not interchangeable. Both figures are now given with their assays. — GIP_Genoveva (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The percentage given in Enteroendocrine L cell for the incretin effect varies considerably across the literature depending on the glucose load used. Attributing it to a specific study, with the load stated, would make it checkable in a way the bare figure is not. — ColumnOvenCoy (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. The load turned out to differ between the two sources I was blending, which explains the discrepancy. — GIP_Genoveva (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)