The second article, by Gardner et al. (2), also addresses antipsychotic dosing, in this case providing international consensus-based guidelines that speak to dose equivalents and clinical variables that might influence dosing (e.g., age, gender, diagnosis). Their findings underscore the lack of agreement, even among experts, reflected in a 76% consensus for clinical equivalency and 67% for all dosing recommendations. These figures highlight the limitations of such an approach, dependent as it is on individual experience and biases versus an established body of evidence; in point of fact though, empiric data are lacking for a number of the variables examined (e.g., hepatic or renal dysfunction, ischemic heart disease). To their credit, the authors include a number of older, as well as newer, antipsychotics, using 20 mg/day of olanzapine as the reference; they also correctly point out that there is no scientific basis for objective data. For example, imaging studies establishing dose equivalents based on dopamine D2 occupancy, the sine qua non of antipsychotic activity, may represent the "gold standard" (3). However, such an approach faces limitations when one is trying to establish equipotent doses for newer agents, such as clozapine, quetiapine, and aripiprazole, each a departure from the traditional high-affinity D2-blocking compound.