The mass-error checker and its intended scope posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
This follows post #61 rather than contradicting it.
Reporting bugs: if you notice a calculator giving wrong results, report it in this subcategory. Bugs are fixed when identified.
On post #61 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
post #69 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
This follows post #68 rather than contradicting it.
Units: all calculators explicitly require units to be stated. This prevents the decimal-point errors that come from forgetting units. Always verify units in and out.
I read post #70 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Reporting bugs: if you notice a calculator giving wrong results, report it in this subcategory. Bugs are fixed when identified.
Picking up post #72: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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.
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.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
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.
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 #79, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Picking up post #79: that is the part I would want checked first.
Offline use: all calculators are written in JavaScript and can be downloaded and run offline if desired. They do not require internet connectivity to function.
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.
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 #83 rather than contradicting it.
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.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
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.
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.