User talk:RetatrutideRuben

Amylin compares potency with a compound that has no published head-to-head study against it. The comparison may well be right, but assembling it from two separate trials is the case Project:No original research covers. Could the sentence be attributed to a review that makes the comparison, or removed? — IcodecIndra (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair. I have attributed it to the review that makes the comparison, and noted that the review is doing the comparing rather than a trial. — RetatrutideRuben (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Per Project:Manual of style the international non-proprietary name leads and the trade name follows in parentheses at first mention. Dual incretin agonist has it the other way round in the lead and the right way round in the body. Not important in itself, but the articles are read side by side. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Corrected throughout, including the infobox title, which was inconsistent with both. — RetatrutideRuben (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The molar mass in the Amylin infobox does not say which form it refers to. Free base and salt differ by enough that a reader reconstituting from the figure would be several per cent out. Do you know which the source gives? — IcodecIndra (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Free base, per the source. I have said so in the row label and added a note about the counterion. — RetatrutideRuben (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Threads on this page older than 120 days and marked resolved have been moved to an archive subpage. Unresolved threads were left in place regardless of age. This is an automated message. — ArchiveBot (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)