Brian Vastag · @brianvastag
1074 followers · 1980 posts · Server sciencemastodon.com

Welp today I learned that in July, the black interior of the vehicle I drive gets hotter than the melting point of naproxen capsules.

#mess #melted #dosage #impossible #to #determine

Last updated 1 year ago

· @tutorialseri
65 followers · 6878 posts · Server mastodon.bida.im

3 Ways to Determine Benadryl Dosage for Dogs

#howto #diy #dosage

Last updated 1 year ago

Laurent Espitallier · @frenchhope
457 followers · 11905 posts · Server framapiaf.org
· @Weedmob
85 followers · 396 posts · Server metalhead.club
𝕎𝕖𝕣𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕞 · @wertham
1416 followers · 827 posts · Server mastodon.social

Complicate this 🌍 you 🎁 for me
I'm acquainted with your suffering
Hold me up to all whom you've deceived
Promises you break you still believe
And all your weight
It falls on me
It brings me down
And all your weight
It falls on me
It falls on me



9 Feb 1999
🐝🐝👄🐝🐝


youtu.be/spY8vWqNKF8

#heavy #edroland #collectivesoul #dosage #progressive #rock #pop #1990s #movies #1970s

Last updated 2 years ago

Ahli Anggur :orangewine: · @AlexGBardsley
100 followers · 310 posts · Server epicure.social

@megmaker Many Brut Zeros are exactly that, but I remember this as a stand out in the Tarlant line-up at Temps des Copains, Nantes.

#wine #champagne #dosage

Last updated 2 years ago

Daniel Dvorkin · @medigoth
90 followers · 90 posts · Server qoto.org

Ever since the Human Project got rolling about thirty years ago (!) there’s been a lot of hope, and a lot of hype, about “ ” or “ medicine.” When it became clear that as always, the results weren’t going to match the hype, a lot of the hope went away too. This is a mistake.

I’d like to talk about a quiet revolution in precision medicine: guidelines, a.k.a. . The basic idea is that if you carry certain genetic , you may need considerably more or less of a particular medication than the standard dose. Back in the ’90s, the kind of genetic needed to make use of that information was far too expensive and time-consuming for practice. These days you can get a complete in a matter of hours, for the same cost as a battery of standard blood tests.

Fifteen years ago or so, the FDA approved the first pharmacogenomic labeling, for . I was lucky enough to be in the room when the researchers made the announcement, and you could have heard a pin drop. Now it’s routine, and there’s a very long list: fda.gov/drugs/science-and-rese

Everyone reacts to differently. For most patients, most medications, and most diseases, there’s a fairly broad range of clinical effectiveness between “too little to do any good” and “way too much.” But for a substantial number of all of the above, the range is much narrower—and when you add up all the special cases, you get a hell of a lot of people!

A lot of never get approved, despite showing promise in clinical , because they only help a portion of the study population. Regulatory bodies like the are notoriously resistant to analysis, and I get why: it’s very easy to cherry-pick those subjects in a clinical trial who happen to do well, and then come up with a post hoc explanation for why the test treatment worked for them but not for other participants. Some bad drugs have made it to market because of this kind of chicanery. But of course sometimes there’s a real reason one group does better, and as long as genetic testing is part of the study design from the start, it’s becoming possible to convince regulators that reason is valid.

My work is mostly upstream of this, in the drug phase: finding disease-related and that might be modifiable with the right medication. Since it’s part of the project from the start, that makes trial design easier, and the results more likely to be accepted. But I’d really like to see more analysis on drugs that aren’t designed that way too, and I think we’re getting there.

Genetic dosage guidelines, though, are making a real difference in current practice. There are still considerable debates over the merits of many labelings, driven partly by legitimate concerns and partly by ideology. But the principle is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it’s saving lives and relieving suffering right now, every day. Much more to come.

#genome #personalized #medicine #dosage #pharmacogenomic #labeling #variants #precision #genetic #clinical #warfarin #medications #drugs #trials #fda #analysis #sequence #subgroup #target #discovery #genes #proteins #genomic #statistical

Last updated 2 years ago

Daniel Dvorkin · @medigoth
90 followers · 90 posts · Server qoto.org

Ever since the Human Project got rolling about thirty years ago (!) there’s been a lot of hope, and a lot of hype, about “ ” or “ medicine.” When it became clear that as always, the results weren’t going to match the hype, a lot of the hope went away too. This is a mistake.

I’d like to talk about a quiet revolution in precision medicine: guidelines, a.k.a. . The basic idea is that if you carry certain genetic , you may need considerably more or less of a particular medication than the standard dose. Back in the ’90s, the kind of genetic needed to make use of that information was far too expensive and time-consuming for practice. These days you can get a complete in a matter of hours, for the same cost as a battery of standard blood tests.

Fifteen years ago or so, the FDA approved the first pharmacogenomic labeling, for . I was lucky enough to be in the room when the researchers made the announcement, and you could have heard a pin drop. Now it’s routine, and there’s a very long list: fda.gov/drugs/science-and-rese

Everyone reacts to differently. For most patients, most medications, and most diseases, there’s a fairly broad range of clinical effectiveness between “too little to do any good” and “way too much.” But for a substantial number of all of the above, the range is much narrower—and when you add up all the special cases, you get a hell of a lot of people!

A lot of never get approved, despite showing promise in clinical , because they only help a portion of the study population. Regulatory bodies like the are notoriously resistant to analysis, and I get why: it’s very easy to cherry-pick those subjects in a clinical trial who happen to do well, and then come up with a post hoc explanation for why the test treatment worked for them but not for other participants. Some bad drugs have made it to market because of this kind of chicanery. But of course sometimes there’s a real reason one group does better, and as long as genetic testing is part of the study design from the start, it’s becoming possible to convince regulators that reason is valid.

Much of my work is upstream of this, in the drug phase: finding disease-related and that might be modifiable with the right medication. Since it’s part of the project from the start, that makes trial design easier, and the results more likely to be accepted. But I’d really like to see more analysis on drugs that aren’t designed that way too, and I think we’re getting there.

Genetic dosage guidelines, though, are making a real difference in current practice. There are still considerable debates over the merits of many labelings, driven partly by legitimate concerns and partly by ideology. But the principle is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it’s saving lives and relieving suffering right now, every day. Much more to come.

#medicine #pharmacogenomic #labeling #genome #personalized #precision #genetic #dosage #variants #analysis #clinical #sequence #warfarin #medications #drugs #trials #fda #subgroup #target #discovery #genes #proteins #genomic #statistical

Last updated 2 years ago

Daniel Dvorkin · @medigoth
90 followers · 90 posts · Server qoto.org

Ever since the Human Project got rolling about thirty years ago (!) there’s been a lot of hope, and a lot of hype, about “personalized medicine” or “precision medicine.” When it became clear that as always, the results weren’t going to match the hype, a lot of the hope went away too. This is a mistake.

I’d like to talk about a quiet revolution in precision medicine: guidelines, a.k.a. . The basic idea is that if you carry certain genetic , you may need considerably more or less of a particular medication than the standard dose. Back in the ’90s, the kind of genetic needed to make use of that information was far too expensive and time-consuming for practice. These days you can get a complete in a matter of hours, for the same cost as a battery of standard blood tests.

Fifteen years ago or so, the FDA approved the first pharmacogenomic labeling, for . I was lucky enough to be in the room when the researchers made the announcement, and you could have heard a pin drop. Now it’s routine, and there’s a very long list: fda.gov/drugs/science-and-rese

Everyone reacts to differently. For most patients, most medications, and most diseases, there’s a fairly broad range of clinical effectiveness between “too little to do any good” and “way too much.” But for a substantial number of all of the above, the range is much narrower—and when you add up all the special cases, you get a hell of a lot of people!

A lot of never get approved, despite showing promise in clinical , because they only help a portion of the study population. Regulatory bodies like the are notoriously resistant to analysis, and I get why: it’s very easy to cherry-pick those subjects in a clinical trial who happen to do well, and then come up with a post hoc explanation for why the test treatment worked for them but not for other participants. Some bad drugs have made it to market because of this kind of chicanery. But of course sometimes there’s a real reason one group does better, and as long as genetic testing is part of the study design from the start, it’s becoming possible to convince regulators that reason is valid.

Much of my work is upstream of this, in the drug phase: finding disease-related and that might be modifiable with the right medication. Since it’s part of the project from the start, that makes trial design easier, and the results more likely to be accepted. But I’d really like to see more analysis on drugs that aren’t designed that way too, and I think we’re getting there.

Genetic dosage guidelines, though, are making a real difference in current practice. There are still considerable debates over the merits of many labelings, driven partly by legitimate concerns and partly by ideology. But the principle is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it’s saving lives and relieving suffering right now, every day. Much more to come.

#genome #pharmacogenomic #labeling #genetic #dosage #variants #analysis #clinical #sequence #warfarin #medications #drugs #trials #fda #subgroup #target #discovery #genes #proteins #genomic #statistical

Last updated 2 years ago

Savah Rellcast · @SavahRellcast
22 followers · 95 posts · Server mastodon.world
IT News · @itnewsbot
1945 followers · 239228 posts · Server schleuss.online

Dosimetry: Measuring Radiation - Thanks to stints as an X-ray technician in my early 20s followed by work in variou... - hackaday.com/2022/11/07/dosime

#dosage #science #interest #featured #radiation #measurement

Last updated 2 years ago

Tech News Worldwide · @TechNews
11241 followers · 97973 posts · Server aspiechattr.me
DavidV.TV Social ® · @DavidVTV
86 followers · 13753 posts · Server masthead.social

| | |

in I HOW to a DOG at HOME I Dog I Depo shots dogs

This lecture explains the novel therapies for in dogs by explaining the , , and mode of administration of the newer drugs that include ..

youtu.be/KjHRMoj3PWM

Disclaimer: DavidVTV.com and/or its owners [Tastingtraffic.com] ..

#side_effects #dosage #Abortion_Pills #pregnancy #abort #dogs #Birth_control #BIG_EMISSIONS #climate_change #BIG_GOV #INTERNATIONAL_TECH_NEWS

Last updated 3 years ago

gaby_wald · @gaby_wald
70 followers · 16249 posts · Server framapiaf.org
gaby_wald · @gaby_wald
73 followers · 16269 posts · Server framapiaf.org