A titration planner is a scheduling aid rather than a clinical recommendation, and any tool that presents one as the other is overstepping.
4 likes 12mo
Data & Tools · Calculators · continued
Follow-up: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
27 likes 12mo
d.barros, post #19: Taking post #16 at face value and following it one step further. Small methodological point on titration planner refuses: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone. Go to post
Adding the measurement that post #62 says would settle it.
A note on scope: what I am saying about titration planner refuses applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
r.mwangi, post #5: Everything in post #3 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on titration planner refuses, because it is the sort of subject where it matters. Go to post
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.
I changed my mind about titration planner refuses after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
2 likes 12mo
On post #64 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Two claims get bundled together under titration planner refuses and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
0 likes 12mo
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.
19 likes 12mo
Titration planner refuses would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
28 likes 12mo
Post #67 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The strongest argument against my own position on titration planner refuses, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
14 likes 12mo
s.vanhecke, post #7: 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. I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude. Go to post
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
Practical answer on titration planner refuses, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
0 likes 12mo
bias_variance, post #15: Adding a null result on titration planner refuses. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are. Go to post
Narrowing post #74, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Titration planner refuses is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
14 likes 12mo
I would call the community position on titration planner refuses likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
0 likes 12mo
Post #76 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
0 likes 12mo
What I would want before treating titration planner refuses as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
2 likes 12mo
d.oyelaran, post #42: Whatever the answer on titration planner refuses turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction. Go to post
Reading back through the titration planner refuses 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.
h.delgado, post #12: Worth separating two things that post #10 runs together. A titration planner is a scheduling aid rather than a clinical recommendation, and any tool that presents one as the other is overstepping. The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why. Go to post
Post #77 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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 uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
v.szabo, post #75: Narrowing post #74, because the general version has more than one answer. 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. Go to post
The documentation on titration planner refuses is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Following, with nothing to contribute beyond having asked the same thing elsewhere.
6 likes 11mo
Adding what did not work for me on titration planner refuses, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
1 like 11mo
CSagredo, post #22: 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. Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine. Go to post
The most common input error is entering the vial mass in the concentration field. It produces a plausible number, which is why it survives.
The bit of titration planner refuses that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
22 likes 11mo
Reframing titration planner refuses slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
10 likes 11mo
Post #85 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Rounding behaviour is where two tools disagree. One rounding to the nearest graduation and one to two decimal places will produce different advice from identical inputs.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
3 likes 11mo
Practical experience of titration planner refuses, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
0 likes 11mo
j.bhattacharya, post #64: Adding the measurement that post #62 says would settle it. A note on scope: what I am saying about titration planner refuses applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking. Go to post
Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.