FIELD P 

 Columns 50 and 51 



DURATION OF TREATMENT 



-or- 



TIME BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION OF THE 



TEST COMPOUND AND A SECONDARY COMPOUND 



Organization 



As in the case of other quantitative values (e.g. , values of Fields M, N, O, and Q), time values 

 of Field P are not recorded literally (requiring three or more punched card columns), but are converted to 

 one -unit code symbols by organizing the total range of time into limited ranges, each of which is repre- 

 sented by a code symbol. In the case of Field P, the most simple organization would have been by divid- 

 ing time into 35 ranges for 35 symbols (26 letter and 9 numerical symbols) for a single IBM column or, if 

 two IBM columns were used, by dividing time into many more than 35 smaller ranges. In either case, 

 such a simple arrangement would have been a continuum of time values. 



The actual pattern of organization, however, was determined by the fact that a test compound's 

 activity may be evaluated on the basis of the duration of treatment. (Ordinarily, the less time the 

 compound must be administered, the more efficacious can be considered the treatment. ) Thus, a 

 relationship exists between Field Y of the Biology Code (the field expressing evaluation of the 

 compound's action) and Field P. Since Field Y expresses evaluations only in broad terms, using only 

 Symbols 1 through 9, the Field P symbols used for correlation with Field Y have likewise been restricted, 

 in the second column, to Symbols 1 through 9. 



It was decided to incorporate into the pattern of organization of Field P some correlation to the 

 type of biological action being tested. (The recording of a test compound's relative worth with respect 

 to the action it has been demonstrated to produce is a persistent and difficult coding problem. ) For 

 this reason, the total range of time of Field P has been broken into several overlapping ranges, each 

 succeeding one expressing time values in broader terms than the one preceding it. For example, the 

 seventh total range (referred to in the Code as Scale 7) expresses time values as < 6 hours to >32 days, 

 whereas the sixth total range expresses time values at <45 minutes to >4 days. 



The purpose in this, as suggested above, is to provide a means of fitting the coding to the field 

 of chemical- biological research in which the test was conducted and to the evaluation as it was derived 

 and expressed by the author. The reader is referred to the discussion of Fields M and N, particularly 

 to Division 3 of the Specific Directions and Explanations section, where it is explained that in those 

 coding fields no such breakdown of total ranges is made for the purpose of correlation with differences 

 between chemical- biological research fields. If it were, each scale of Fields M and N (e. g. , Scale 1 

 of Field M, ppm) would necessarily be broken into a number of overlapping ranges just as is total time 

 in Field P. It may be questioned, then, whether the organization of Field P for the purpose of correlation 

 to evaluation is justified when certain other coding fields of quantitative values, Fields M and N, have 

 not been similarly organized. This can only be answered on the basis of the CBCC Code being an 

 experimental one and subject to change. The pattern of Field P, as well as that of Field U, represents 

 an effort to establish a coding relationship between any given field of chemical-biological research 

 (insecticidal vs. plant growth regulation vs. enzymology, etc. ) and the basis of evaluation (duration of 

 administration, duration of action, etc. ) of results from tests in that research field. Although the same 

 has not been done in the case of Fields M and N, it must be recognized that in those dosage fields, the 

 total range represented by any one scale and the division of the total range was not established in a 

 purely arbitrary manner, but the scale was arranged to correspond to the field of chemical-biological 

 research in which the unit of measure represented by the scale would be most appropriate and most apt 

 to be used by an author. (See paragraph 5 of the Organization section of Fields M and N. ) 



Field P and Field U could each be reduced to a single continuous scale, while, in the reverse, 

 Fields M and N could each be expanded so that each existing scale of those fields could be converted 

 to a series of overlapping scales to be used selectively as the present scales of Fields P and U are 

 now used. In adapting the CBCC Code, the patterns adopted in Field P (as well as Fields M, N, and 

 U) will depend upon whether or not further emphasis is to be placed on attempts to express accurately 

 test evaluations based on dosage size or time values, correlated with the chemical-biological research 

 fields concerned. 



- 99 



