This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
Picking up post #120: that is the part I would want checked first.
Precision and significant figures: the calculators do not round to match your input precision. If you input values to one decimal place, the output might have more. Use significant figures appropriate to your input precision.
Reporting bugs: if you notice a calculator giving wrong results, report it in this subcategory. Bugs are fixed when identified.
Why calculators are not medical advice: they do arithmetic. Medical decisions are not arithmetic. A calculator that says a certain dose is "compatible with" a certain body mass is not a prescription.
Storage lookup: which conditions (temperature, time) are you considering storing in, and how much stability loss is expected? The calculator gives a rough estimate based on typical stability data. Not a substitute for your compound's specific stability data.
I read post #126 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Mass error checking: enter your observed mass and theoretical mass and check whether the difference in ppm is within reasonable bounds for your instrument. Useful sanity check on LC-MS results.
post #128 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The calculators maintained on this site are open-source and verifiable. They are intended to check arithmetic, not to replace medical judgement. Using them is optional and they are provided for convenience.
Dose equivalence calculator: compounds have different potencies. The calculator is provided with a caveat: "equivalence" is not precise and individual response varies. It is a rough starting point, not a dose prescription.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Titration planning: a calculator that shows you the escalation schedule for different starting and ending doses can help you visualize your path. Actual path might be slower or adjusted for tolerability.
post #133 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Precision and significant figures: the calculators do not round to match your input precision. If you input values to one decimal place, the output might have more. Use significant figures appropriate to your input precision.
Dose equivalence calculator: compounds have different potencies. The calculator is provided with a caveat: "equivalence" is not precise and individual response varies. It is a rough starting point, not a dose prescription.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
On post #133 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Mass error checking: enter your observed mass and theoretical mass and check whether the difference in ppm is within reasonable bounds for your instrument. Useful sanity check on LC-MS results.
post #137 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Storage lookup: which conditions (temperature, time) are you considering storing in, and how much stability loss is expected? The calculator gives a rough estimate based on typical stability data. Not a substitute for your compound's specific stability data.
This follows post #137 rather than contradicting it.
Why calculators are not medical advice: they do arithmetic. Medical decisions are not arithmetic. A calculator that says a certain dose is "compatible with" a certain body mass is not a prescription.
Coming back to post #140, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Reporting bugs: if you notice a calculator giving wrong results, report it in this subcategory. Bugs are fixed when identified.
This follows post #142 rather than contradicting it.
Reconstitution calculator: enter vial mass, final volume target, and the calculator tells you concentration and syringe mark for a given dose. Useful for double-checking arithmetic when you are doing it by hand.
The calculators maintained on this site are open-source and verifiable. They are intended to check arithmetic, not to replace medical judgement. Using them is optional and they are provided for convenience.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A calculator that gives a right answer to the wrong question
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A calculator that gives a right answer to the wrong question Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to understand what this number means before I…
|
+32 | 36 | 1.9k | 17h |
|
Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it…
|
+76 | 83 | 53k | 2mo |
|
The storage lookup and where its data comes from
The storage lookup and where its data comes from — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in front of…
|
+4 | 8 | 4.1k | 11mo |
|
Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic
Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Working through the identity arithmetic and I would like it checked.…
|
+17 | 21 | 12k | 3mo |
|
The mass-error checker and its intended scope
The mass-error checker and its intended scope Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Working through the identity arithmetic and I would like it checked.…
|
+149 | 167 | 42k | 2y |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post — the long version
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post — the long version Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the…
|
+79 | 83 | 1.6k | 9mo |
|
Contributing data without breaching anyone's privacy — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Contributing data without breaching anyone's privacy — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a…
|
2 | 58k | 17mo | |
|
Choosing a concentration on purpose rather than by accident
On the subject in the title: Choosing a concentration on purpose rather than by accident Working notes rather than a conclusion. Reporting something rather than asking about it, in case the pattern is useful…
|
2 | 719 | 1mo | |
|
0.3 mL versus 0.5 mL versus 1 mL barrels: resolution matters
0.3 mL versus 0.5 mL versus 1 mL barrels: resolution matters — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Practical question with the units stated, because I have seen how quickly…
|
+104 | 114 | 6k | 6d |
|
Swirling versus inverting versus leaving it alone
On the subject in the title: Swirling versus inverting versus leaving it alone Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have read the maintained page on this and I still have a gap, so I am asking rather…
|
2 | 18k | 18mo |