Posting this under the heading it deserves: Adolescents: a distinct evidence base — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that.
A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Adolescents.
Everyone quotes the same figure and I cannot find anyone who says how it was arrived at. That is not an accusation; it usually means the derivation is somewhere obvious and I have missed it.
Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.
Confirming the opening post from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Two people in this thread mean different things by Adolescents and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
I had written a reply contradicting post #2 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The version of Adolescents that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
The most useful contribution here is usually a citation to whichever published document comes closest, with a plain statement of how far it is from the question.
Post #2 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
A methods point on Adolescents rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Post #4 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and the questions asked here are precisely the ones that need an individual assessment.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
Answering the question post #6 raises rather than the one it answers.
Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
On Adolescents, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about Adolescents than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Coming back to post #9, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Almost every population discussed here was excluded from the pivotal trials, which means the evidence base is observational at best and absent at worst.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Two claims get bundled together under Adolescents and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
Adding the measurement that post #13 says would settle it.
The absence of a reported signal in a population that was barely enrolled is not evidence about that population.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about Adolescents in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Adolescents has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
Answering the question post #17 raises rather than the one it answers.
Adolescent evidence exists for some compounds in this class and is a separate approval decision with its own trials rather than an extension of the adult data.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
What I would tell a new member reading about Adolescents for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Dedicated trials in under-studied populations are the only real remedy and several are ongoing, which is worth saying rather than speculating.
I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
Coming back to post #20, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Athletes and people in substantial training loads are effectively unstudied, and the questions asked here about performance have no trial evidence behind them at all.
Being outside the studied population does not mean a treatment is unsafe. It means the usual evidence is not available and the reasoning has to be explicit.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
The absence of a reported signal in a population that was barely enrolled is not evidence about that population.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Confirming post #26 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The failure mode on Adolescents is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.
Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.
Post #29 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Adding a null result on Adolescents. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.