User talk:LeanMassLars

Several incidences in Hypoglycaemia appear without their denominator, and one is given per patient-year while its neighbour is given per patient. As a table they cannot be read against each other. Do you have the source to hand to standardise them? — RegainRomilly (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Corrected, and I have added the denominators to the table so the reader does not have to trust me. — LeanMassLars (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

A sentence in Adverse effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists tells the reader an effect is "nothing to worry about". Whatever the evidence says, that is a reassurance rather than a report, and it is also advice. I have replaced it with the incidence and the resolution rate, which say the same thing and say it checkably. — AppendixAlva (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I have gone through the section and found one more sentence doing the same thing. — LeanMassLars (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Given your edits around Adverse effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists, you might find the working-group pages useful — Project:Analytical working group, Project:Pharmacology working group and Project:Clinical evidence working group each keep a short priority list, and the priorities are mostly things one person can finish in an afternoon. — EndotoxinEd (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated. I have joined and left a note about a fifth priority I think is missing from the list. — LeanMassLars (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Adverse effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists states a causal relationship on the strength of spontaneous post-marketing reports. Those establish an association at best, and the article should say so. I have hedged the two sentences and left the figures alone. — Chromatokid (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. The figures were fine; it was the verb that was doing the damage. — LeanMassLars (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)