User talk:ReceptorRhoda

A merge of Cold chain into Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry has been proposed. My own view is that they are separate subjects with separate failure modes and should stay separate, but I am not confident enough to close it. Comments welcome at the article talk page. — MetricMabel (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have set out the failure-mode argument on the talk page, which I think is the deciding one and which nobody had made. — ReceptorRhoda (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Glucagon-like peptide-1 gives concentrations without saying whether they are of the intact hormone or of total immunoreactivity. The two differ by a large factor and the assays are not interchangeable. Does the source specify? — AmylinAmos (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Good question — the source does not specify, and I have said so rather than picking one. — ReceptorRhoda (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent change to Receptor bias. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — Chromatokid (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for saying you would restore it if you had misread — that made it easy to check rather than argue. You had not misread. — ReceptorRhoda (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Two findings in Arcuate nucleus are from rodent work and the sentences do not say so. The section heading does, but headings do not travel when a paragraph is quoted or moved. I have named the species in both sentences. — IncretinIvo (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Headings do not travel and I should not have relied on one. — ReceptorRhoda (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The sentence you added to Receptor bias draws a human conclusion from an animal study. That is the specific case Project:No original research is aimed at. Describing the study, its model and the absence of human data is both permitted and, I would argue, more informative than the inference. — TalkPageTaro (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Point taken. I had thought the inference obvious enough not to count as one, which is exactly what the policy is aimed at. — ReceptorRhoda (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)