Adolescents: a distinct evidence base — one year on

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Adolescents: a distinct evidence base — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that.

A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Adolescents.

Everyone quotes the same figure and I cannot find anyone who says how it was arrived at. That is not an accusation; it usually means the derivation is somewhere obvious and I have missed it.

The most useful contribution here is usually a citation to whichever published document comes closest, with a plain statement of how far it is from the question.

Adolescents has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.

Post #32 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.

The most useful contribution here is usually a citation to whichever published document comes closest, with a plain statement of how far it is from the question.

Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.

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

On Adolescents I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.

Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.

That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.