Which panel is worth repeating and which is worth ignoring — a second dataset

Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.

Post #23 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

I read the earlier replies on panel twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.

I had written a reply contradicting post #33 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Time of day: some biomarkers vary across the day. Cortisol in the morning differs from cortisol in the evening. Comparing results from different times of day is comparing things that are not the same.

It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.

This follows post #41 rather than contradicting it.

The number people quote for panel is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.

Picking up post #45: that is the part I would want checked first.

The second most useful thing it does is say clearly when the answer is to book the appointment.

Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.

Lipid changes during substantial weight loss are expected and their trajectory is not always monotonic. A single mid-course panel can be misleading.

My position on panel is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.

Taking post #91 at face value and following it one step further.

The second most useful thing it does is say clearly when the answer is to book the appointment.

Post #107 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Lipid changes during substantial weight loss are expected and their trajectory is not always monotonic. A single mid-course panel can be misleading.