Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
compared to no administration with
English answer:
administration of, not administration with
Added to glossary by
Charles Davis
Apr 3, 2015 09:33
9 yrs ago
1 viewer *
English term
Egypt
Helping Clinical Researchers Save Lives
Native in: Arabic (Variant: Egyptian) 
Works in: English to Arabic, Arabic to English
compared to no administration with
English
Law/Patents
Medical (general)
Biomedicine
Do "compared to no administration with" and "compared to no administration of" have the same meaning?
Context:
In some embodiments, the covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor is administered following treatment of the cancer with a first anticancer therapy, wherein the first anticancer therapy does not comprise administration of a covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor.
In some embodiments, administration of the covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor decreases the number of Th2 polarized T cells in the subject compared to no administration with the covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor.
I understand it this way:
Number of Th2 polarized T cells is decreased after the patient took the "kinase inhibitor" compared to the number of Th2 polarized T cells before taking the "kinase inhibitor".
TIA
Context:
In some embodiments, the covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor is administered following treatment of the cancer with a first anticancer therapy, wherein the first anticancer therapy does not comprise administration of a covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor.
In some embodiments, administration of the covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor decreases the number of Th2 polarized T cells in the subject compared to no administration with the covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor.
I understand it this way:
Number of Th2 polarized T cells is decreased after the patient took the "kinase inhibitor" compared to the number of Th2 polarized T cells before taking the "kinase inhibitor".
TIA
Change log
Apr 4, 2015 14:48: Charles Davis Created KOG entry
Responses
+3
4 hrs
Selected
administration of, not administration with
The kinase inhibitor is administered or not, so we are talking about administration or no administration OF the kinase inhibitor. Administation with is wrong, because the inhibitor is administered, it is not an instrument with which administration takes place. Indeed, "administration of" is correctly used twice in the preceding part of the passage you've quoted.
Personally I would not change "administration" to "taking". We would normally refer to a patient "taking" a medication when it is self-administered orally, but there's no reason to think that is the case here, in fact it seems unlikely. Many medications are given to patients in other ways (such as intravenously for example), in which it would not make sense to speak of the patient "taking" them. In any case, there is nothing wrong with "administration" and no reason to change it.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2015-04-03 14:40:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The point, really, is that "administration" is something that was done to the patient, whereas "taking" is something the patient did, so changing one to the other changes the emphasis. Even if the patient did in fact take it orally, "administered" expresses the idea that the patient was receiving treatment from the health professionals.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2015-04-03 16:54:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt about it, I assure you: "administration with the kinase inhibitor" is wrong and "administration of the kinase inhibitor" is right. Just in case you don't believe me, try looking for both phrases in Google:
"administration of the kinase inhibitor": 52 results
"administration with the kinase inhibitor": No results
Equally, it should be "no administration of", not "no administration with". The preposition doesn't change in the negative form.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2015-04-03 17:05:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
You can say that a patient was administered with a medication, or at least people do say that, but that's a different syntactic structure. You never talk about administration with a medication.
Personally I would not change "administration" to "taking". We would normally refer to a patient "taking" a medication when it is self-administered orally, but there's no reason to think that is the case here, in fact it seems unlikely. Many medications are given to patients in other ways (such as intravenously for example), in which it would not make sense to speak of the patient "taking" them. In any case, there is nothing wrong with "administration" and no reason to change it.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2015-04-03 14:40:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The point, really, is that "administration" is something that was done to the patient, whereas "taking" is something the patient did, so changing one to the other changes the emphasis. Even if the patient did in fact take it orally, "administered" expresses the idea that the patient was receiving treatment from the health professionals.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2015-04-03 16:54:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt about it, I assure you: "administration with the kinase inhibitor" is wrong and "administration of the kinase inhibitor" is right. Just in case you don't believe me, try looking for both phrases in Google:
"administration of the kinase inhibitor": 52 results
"administration with the kinase inhibitor": No results
Equally, it should be "no administration of", not "no administration with". The preposition doesn't change in the negative form.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2015-04-03 17:05:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
You can say that a patient was administered with a medication, or at least people do say that, but that's a different syntactic structure. You never talk about administration with a medication.
Note from asker:
| Thanks a lot Charles, I can see that we are thinking along the same line. Sure there is a difference between administer and take which it is related to drugs. |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
+2
2 hrs
Alok Tiwari
India
India
Native in English
&
English
Works in field
India
Christian Translator
Native in: English 
, Hindi
Works in: English, English to Hindi, Hindi to English, and 3 more.
compared to no administration with ["of" - incorrect]
The subject is "not administered with" the covalent TEC family kinase inhibitor.
The answer to your question "Do 'compared to no administration with' and 'compared to no administration of' have the same meaning?' is "NO." The usage of "of" is grammatically incorrect.
Your understanding is correct, but the way you have put it is not grammatically correct. Let me try to rephrase it with minimum changes:
Number of Th2 polarized T cells decreased after the patient took the "kinase inhibitor" compared to the situation when he did not take the "kinase inhibitor."
The answer to your question "Do 'compared to no administration with' and 'compared to no administration of' have the same meaning?' is "NO." The usage of "of" is grammatically incorrect.
Your understanding is correct, but the way you have put it is not grammatically correct. Let me try to rephrase it with minimum changes:
Number of Th2 polarized T cells decreased after the patient took the "kinase inhibitor" compared to the situation when he did not take the "kinase inhibitor."
Note from asker:
| Thank you very much Alok |
Something went wrong...