This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
13 likes 11mo
Compounds · Other compounds · continued
Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything — what changed since posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
t.vasquez, post #19: Anything in this subcategory with a published trial behind it should be discussed separately from anything without one. Mixing them produces a discussion where the confident claims come from the compounds with the least evidence. Go to post
Narrowing post #33, because the general version has more than one answer.
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
One more thing on catalogue breadth that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
8 likes 11mo
r.molnar, post #32: The failure mode on catalogue breadth is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong. Go to post
Answering the question post #33 raises rather than the one it answers.
What I can speak to on catalogue breadth is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
week_three, post #25: This follows post #24 rather than contradicting it. A methods point on catalogue breadth rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method. Go to post
Reading a supplier's product description as a marketing document: that is exactly what it is. The hyperbole, the mechanism written as fact, the theoretical benefits stated as established benefits — all of that is marketing. Treat it as such and separate it from evidence where evidence exists.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
n.ekstrom, post #1: Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything — what changed since What changes if the standard account of catalogue breadth is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why. Working through the consequences rather… Go to post
On post #37 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
Picking up post #37: that is the part I would want checked first.
Research use only, not approved for human use, and in this subcategory the compounds vary enormously in how much is known about them. It is worth establishing which end of that range a specific compound sits at before anything else.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
0 likes 11mo
r.marsden, post #23: Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space. Go to post
The honest summary for most of this subcategory: a plausible mechanism, animal data, and first-hand accounts. Saying so is more useful than assembling the accounts into something that reads like evidence.
Tamburello, post #37: Answering the question post #33 raises rather than the one it answers. What I can speak to on catalogue breadth is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know. Go to post
Confirming post #42 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Source for the catalogue breadth figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I had written a reply contradicting post #40 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
How to research a compound with no human data: mechanistic plausibility is one input. Preclinical data is another. The honest position is that you are reasoning from theory, not from evidence, and the track record of such reasoning is unimpressive when tested against actual outcomes.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
1 like 10mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
f.kimani, post #20: The bit of catalogue breadth that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge. Go to post
I changed my mind about catalogue breadth after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
m.nwosu, post #36: Sequence verification: for an obscure compound, a report of the amino acid sequence or a mass-spectrometry result confirming the mass is the only verification that actually matters. A supplier's certificate stating the name is not verification. Go to post
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
Where I part company with post #44, and it is a narrow parting.
Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything: a supplier listing 500 compounds does not make the 450 untested ones likely to work. It makes them untested compounds with supplier pages.
4 likes 10mo
Narrowing post #46, because the general version has more than one answer.
Two things can be true about catalogue breadth at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
2 likes 10mo
bias_variance, post #17: On post #15 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything: a supplier listing 500 compounds does not make the 450 untested ones likely to work. It makes them untested compounds with supplier pages. This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again. Go to post
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
This subcategory exists because some people will research compounds outside the main groups discussed here. The standard of evidence and honesty about its limits applies to everything discussed, not just to approved drugs.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
0 likes 10mo
h.ramos, post #34: Narrowing post #33, because the general version has more than one answer. Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here. This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not. Go to post
I have been on both sides of the catalogue breadth argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
Post #52 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
PT-141 was developed from the same family with a different receptor profile, and it has a considerably better documented human evidence base than most compounds discussed in this subcategory.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
12 likes 10mo
Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
1 like 10mo
aliquot_line, post #42: The honest summary for most of this subcategory: a plausible mechanism, animal data, and first-hand accounts. Saying so is more useful than assembling the accounts into something that reads like evidence. Go to post
I had written a reply contradicting post #55 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The honest summary for most of this subcategory: a plausible mechanism, animal data, and first-hand accounts. Saying so is more useful than assembling the accounts into something that reads like evidence.
That much is documented. The rest is how I have interpreted it.
d.nwosu, post #30: Anything in this subcategory with a published trial behind it should be discussed separately from anything without one. Mixing them produces a discussion where the confident claims come from the compounds with the least evidence. I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ. Go to post
Confirming post #55 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
How to research a compound with no human data: mechanistic plausibility is one input. Preclinical data is another. The honest position is that you are reasoning from theory, not from evidence, and the track record of such reasoning is unimpressive when tested against actual outcomes.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The practical version of catalogue breadth is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Adding the measurement that post #58 says would settle it.
On catalogue breadth the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
3 likes 10mo