Feature request: should a dose-equivalence tool exist at all? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.
Reading back through what has been written here about feature request, three questions come up every time and only one has ever been answered properly.
Listing all three, with what I think the state of the answer is for each, so the thread can start further along than the last one did.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about feature request in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
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.
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.
Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.
Speaking only to feature request as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
Checking a tool against a worked example you already trust is five minutes well spent, and it is the only validation available to a user.
Feature request would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Coming back to post #10, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
A titration planner is a scheduling aid rather than a clinical recommendation, and any tool that presents one as the other is overstepping.
This follows post #13 rather than contradicting it.
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.
Do the arithmetic by hand the first few times, whatever tool you use afterwards. A calculator with a wrong input gives a confident wrong answer and there is nothing in the interface to tell you.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this feature request discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
I would be cautious about generalising from the feature request example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
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 a tool asks for a value you do not have, the honest response is to find the value rather than to estimate it. Estimated inputs propagate silently.
Post #22 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The question underneath feature request 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 observation, collecting it will not help.
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.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
If a tool asks for a value you do not have, the honest response is to find the value rather than to estimate it. Estimated inputs propagate silently.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
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 Titration planner refuses — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
+76 | 83 | 53k | 2mo |
|
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 |
|
Follow-up: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor
The question in the title: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. A follow-up question about titration…
|
+120 | 146 | 14k | 10mo |
|
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 |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reconstituting a multi-strength kit without mixing yourself up — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Reconstituting a multi-strength kit without mixing yourself up — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Reconstituting…
|
+42 | 46 | 1k | 7h |
|
A friction point in the promotion workflow
A friction point in the promotion workflow — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about friction point directly, because I have read four threads on it and each answered…
|
+4 | 8 | 491 | 11mo |
|
[2026 update] Request: show the solution author in the topic list
Request: show the solution author in the topic list Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Bringing the figures rather than the impression, since a process question…
|
2 | 59 | 2y | |
|
About the Site feedback category
Bugs, friction, and the parts of the site that do not work the way you expected. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and…
|
4 | 54k | 10mo | |
|
Gauge and length selection for subcutaneous injection
Gauge and length selection for subcutaneous injection Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about gauge and length selection that I did not…
|
+50 | 55 | 1.3k | 8mo |