Worth separating two things that post #5 runs together. Validating a calculator against hand: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
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, because I have had to do it twice and I would rather nobody else did.
Every step is shown. If the answer is wrong the error will be visible, which is the point of writing it out rather than posting the result.
The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Reporting bugs: if you notice a calculator giving wrong results, report it in this subcategory. Bugs are fixed when identified.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
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.
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.
Post #5 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Where a calculator and your own arithmetic disagree, the productive move is to find which step differs rather than to decide which is right.
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.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.
Reading back through the validating a calculator against hand threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
Picking up post #10: that is the part I would want checked first.
Nothing a calculator produces is medical advice, and a correct calculation on inappropriate inputs is still an inappropriate answer.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
Coming back to post #13, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
Maintaining a calculator means checking the arithmetic against hand-worked cases at each review, not checking that it still loads.
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.
This follows post #14 rather than contradicting it.
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
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.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
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.
On post #16 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
Post #20 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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 am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Feature request: should a dose-equivalence tool exist at all?
Feature request: should a dose-equivalence tool exist at all? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Reading back through what has been written here about…
|
+37 | 41 | 725 | 7mo |
|
Revisiting: Bug report: the reconstitution calculator and a rounding edge case
Revisiting: 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…
|
+109 | 122 | 5.8k | 17mo |
|
Feature request: should a dose-equivalence tool exist at all?
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…
|
+21 | 25 | 4.8k | 18mo |
|
Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from Working notes rather than a conclusion. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on storage lookup,…
|
+38 | 42 | 13k | 19d |
|
A calculator that gives a right answer to the wrong question — does this still hold?
A calculator that gives a right answer to the wrong question — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting the calculation with the…
|
+23 | 27 | 62k | 8mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What a confidence interval means, from scratch
What a confidence interval means, from scratch — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Asking about confidence interval directly, because I have read four…
|
2 | 2.6k | 2mo | |
|
Reading U-100 graduations, with a conversion table — what changed since
Reading U-100 graduations, with a conversion table — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of Reading U-100…
|
2 | 10k | 2mo | |
|
Follow-up: Dead volume across syringe and needle combinations
Dead volume across syringe and needle combinations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about Dead volume across syringe that I did not know to ask the…
|
+81 | 98 | 22k | 18mo |
|
Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from Working notes rather than a conclusion. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on storage lookup,…
|
+38 | 42 | 13k | 19d |
|
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. Asking about swirling versus inverting versus leaving on behalf of the question I keep…
|
2 | 18k | 18mo |