Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
0 likes 3mo
Data & Tools · Calculators · continued
Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor posts 61–84
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
n.abernathy, post #40: Adding the measurement that post #37 says would settle it. The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives. I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude. Go to post
On titration planner refuses 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.
isotonic_sheet, post #55: Post #52 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it. The question underneath titration planner refuses is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it. Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same… Go to post
A saved calculation is worth more than a remembered one. Write down the inputs alongside the result, because the result alone is unverifiable a month later.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The arithmetic in post #64 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
Unit-conversion tools are only as good as the assumption they make about the syringe. Ask what barrel and what graduation interval it assumed before trusting the units figure.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
0 likes 3mo
t.demir, post #50: One more thing on titration planner refuses that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears. Go to post
Summarising the titration planner refuses thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Tools that run entirely in the browser send nothing anywhere, which matters more to some people here than others and is worth stating either way.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
25 likes 3mo
A titration planner is a scheduling aid rather than a clinical recommendation, and any tool that presents one as the other is overstepping.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
0 likes 3mo
n.abernathy, post #5: Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first. My experience of titration planner refuses contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that. Go to post
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
au.pereira, post #60: The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives. Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right. Go to post
Post #69 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Where I would push back on the titration planner refuses consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
A tool that refuses to give an answer when the result falls below one graduation is doing something useful. Most just print the number.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
6 likes 3mo
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.
1 like 2mo
m.strand_rph, post #13: The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives. If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess. Go to post
Titration planner refuses sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.
Confirming post #73 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A tool that refuses to give an answer when the result falls below one graduation is doing something useful. Most just print the number.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
10 likes 2mo
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.
3 likes 2mo
y.mensah, post #67: Summarising the titration planner refuses thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length. Go to post
Coming back to post #77, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
What I would tell a new member reading about titration planner refuses for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Narrowing post #82, because the general version has more than one answer.
Significant figures in the output should not exceed what the inputs support. A concentration calculated from a nominal vial mass is not known to four decimal places.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
17 likes 2mo
f.villalobos, post #3: Post #2 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Marking my uncertainty on titration planner refuses explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post. Go to post
A titration planner is a scheduling aid rather than a clinical recommendation, and any tool that presents one as the other is overstepping.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
This topic was referenced in
- The storage lookup and where its data comes fromData & Tools › Calculators · 8 replies
- Revisiting: Bug report: the reconstitution calculator and a rounding edge caseData & Tools › Calculators · 122 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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. Validating a calculator against hand: setting out the arithmetic in full,…
|
+17 | 21 | 12k | 3mo |
|
Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of Validating a…
|
+121 | 137 | 21k | 13mo |
|
Bug report: the reconstitution calculator and a rounding edge case
Bug report: the reconstitution calculator and a rounding edge case — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting the calculation with the inputs, so that somebody can disagree…
|
+68 | 72 | 28k | 4mo |
|
Follow-up: Bug report: the reconstitution calculator and a rounding edge case
On the subject in the title: Bug report: the reconstitution calculator and a rounding edge case Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting the calculation with the inputs, so that somebody can disagree…
|
+58 | 63 | 24k | 5mo |
|
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. Proposing that mass-error checker deserves a maintained page rather than a…
|
+149 | 167 | 42k | 2y |
Related topics — sharing the tags syringe units, site feedback, concentration maths
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fixed versus detachable needles: the trade-offs
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Fixed versus detachable needles: the trade-offs Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about fixed versus detachable needles in a thread last spring…
|
+117 | 121 | 7.3k | 18mo |
|
Converting between mg/mL and units per dose, both directions
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Converting between mg/mL and units per dose, both directions Everything below is what sits behind that. Practical question with the units stated, because I have…
|
+106 | 142 | 9.5k | 19mo |
|
Tag proliferation and whether we should prune
On the subject in the title: Tag proliferation and whether we should prune Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin tag proliferation down and I want to set out where I…
|
2 | 11k | 11mo | |
|
Aggregated purity results across four services, with caveats — a second dataset
Aggregated purity results across four services, with caveats — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Aggregated purity results…
|
+127 | 151 | 42k | 10mo |
|
About the Syringes & needles category
Insulin syringe graduations, dead volume, gauge and length selection, and reading units correctly. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded…
|
4 | 45k | 1mo |