Transparent ruler – like in the good ol’ days [Bioanalytics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-11-05 23:43 (2392 d 06:43 ago) – Posting: # 19536
Views: 11,259

Hi Ohlbe and Hötzi,

Thanks for your qualified opinions.

I am inclined to do this:

lines(c(5.6, 5.6), c(4.1,18), col="green", lwd=6)
lines(c(8, 8), c(4.1,8.8 ), col="red", lwd=6)


where the red line indicates the level of noise (in this case, right of the peak) and the greeen one is the signal. Roughly.

Note that in both cases I quantify s as well as n in one direction from the baseline mean or median or whatever.

Thus I am landing at s:n = (18-4.1) / (8-4.1) = 3.6.
I am not in any way claiming this is better or worse, only that this is my idea of an approach.

If I recall correctly, if you are "a large software vendor" -and I will mention none in particular- you can also do something like:

k=3                   #a miserable sad pointless constant to make s:n look better ??
a=sd (y3[400:714])    #sd of points on the peak
b=sd (y3[800:1000])   #sd of points adjacent to the peak
sn=k*a/b

which gives a result of about 5.:-D
Personally, I would of course always adjust k so that s:n is not less than 10 or so, just to avoid questions. I mean, I care about my data because I am not a nasty person :-D:-D:-D
—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
30 visitors (0 registered, 30 guests [including 23 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:26 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes
that can be made in his subject,
and how to avoid them.    Werner Heisenberg

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5