Micro-titration: a disputed topic, argued properly — one year on posts 61–69

Picking up post #59: that is the part I would want checked first.

A titration plan written down in advance is easier to stick to and easier to abandon deliberately. An improvised one becomes a series of decisions made on the worst day of each week.

The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.

On post #60 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

The four-week step is a trial convention, not a pharmacological constant. It is roughly four half-lives for a week-long half-life, which is the interval at which you are assessing a stable concentration rather than a rising one.

That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.

On Micro-titration 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.

Adding the measurement that post #62 says would settle it.

One more thing on Micro-titration 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.

The maximum studied dose is a fact about the trial and not a ceiling on the molecule. It is also the last point at which anything is known, which is the reason to treat it as one.

Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.

Since Micro-titration 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.

A note on how Micro-titration gets discussed rather than on Micro-titration itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.