Source for the Validating a calculator against hand figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is. Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
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 calculator against hand is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
Source for the Validating a calculator against hand figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
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.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.
Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.
Before the thread moves on from Validating a calculator against hand — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
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.
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.
That is all I can say without guessing.
Where I have landed on Validating a calculator against hand, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
On post #6 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Worth separating Validating a calculator against hand as a question about the compound from Validating a calculator against hand as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Coming back to post #9, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives.
A weak preference rather than a position.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
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.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Post #13 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Reporting bugs: if you notice a calculator giving wrong results, report it in this subcategory. Bugs are fixed when identified.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
This follows post #13 rather than contradicting it.
I have three months of notes on Validating a calculator against hand and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
A calculator that shows its working is worth ten that give an answer. The whole value is being able to see which step you disagree with.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
The honest answer on Validating a calculator against hand is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Coming back to post #20, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Since Validating a calculator against hand keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Post #22 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
On Validating a calculator against hand 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.
Picking up post #26: that is the part I would want checked first.
I read the earlier replies on Validating a calculator against hand twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.