On the subject in the title: Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Posting a small dataset on reading a preclinical wound-healing model. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.
What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.
This follows post #6 rather than contradicting it.
The preclinical work is genuinely interesting and it is preclinical. A rodent tendon model is a model of a rodent tendon, and the translation record from that kind of model is poor.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
The arithmetic in post #11 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
I have been on both sides of the reading a preclinical wound-healing model argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
The arithmetic in post #51 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The lyophilised cake is worth looking at before adding diluent. A collapsed or shrunken cake is not a purity finding but it does say something about how the vial was made and how it travelled.
Post #55 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model: the model shows whether a mechanism is plausible in a specific context. It does not show magnitude of effect in humans, does not show safety profile in humans, and does not show whether the effect survives in a more complex biological system. That is not a criticism of preclinical work — it is what preclinical work is for.
For anyone arriving from search engines: this subcategory discusses published preclinical work and the absence of published clinical work. It does not endorse or recommend these compounds.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
The preclinical work is genuinely interesting and it is preclinical. A rodent tendon model is a model of a rodent tendon, and the translation record from that kind of model is poor.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Everything in post #134 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
What I would check first on reading a preclinical wound-healing model is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Read the full topic (161 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured — one year on
On the subject in the title: Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Stability of BPC-157, deliberately narrow,…
|
+84 | 98 | 7.8k | 18h |
|
What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer — one year on
What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer — one year on I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Documentation question rather than a…
|
+9 | 13 | 42k | 19mo |
|
About the Repair & healing peptides category
BPC-157, TB-500 and similar. Mostly preclinical evidence; this subcategory is strict about not overstating it. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit…
|
4 | 19k | 13mo | |
|
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. The question about BPC-157 that I actually want…
|
+77 | 84 | 54k | 11mo |
|
Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157 Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about Oral versus injected administration claims…
|
+23 | 27 | 7.7k | 15mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aggregated purity results across four services, with caveats — a second dataset
Aggregated purity results across four services, with caveats — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Aggregated purity results…
|
+127 | 151 | 42k | 10mo |
|
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about how this site should cite something…
|
+109 | 116 | 36k | 2d |
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold?
The question in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. A question about…
|
+103 | 115 | 24k | 10mo |
|
Immortal time bias in a claims-database study
Immortal time bias in a claims-database study — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about immortal time bias directly, because I have read four threads on it and each…
|
+29 | 34 | 28k | 11mo |
|
Coming back to: A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases
On the subject in the title: A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases Working notes rather than a conclusion. Reading back through what has been written here about community…
|
+27 | 31 | 46k | 9mo |