QCs vs. calibrators [Bioanalytics]
Dear Ohlbe!
OK.
Again, an outlier test with n=2–3 is futile. IMHO such a test shouldn’t be used in any case. To be honest I don’t know of any analyst even trying one. Well, and results should be reported. But: In this post you wrote:
Again, what’s your rationale of “excluding a standard sample” – calibrators and QCs are prepared in exactly the same way? Both are spiked samples of known concentrations. If you ask for an “excellent and documented analytical reason” to exclude a QC, why do you not require the same for standards? Or do you? To paraphrase your statement: Your calibrator is an experimental result […]
❝ ❝ Of course the value has to be reported and included in the calculation of acc./prec.
❝
❝ Then we agree: you're not excluding it...
❝
❝ Of course I agree that you can have up to 1/3 of your QCs failing.
OK.
❝ But that's not what I call exclusion. The failing results are there, and should be reported and included in the calculations, whether considered statistically to be outliers or not.
Again, an outlier test with n=2–3 is futile. IMHO such a test shouldn’t be used in any case. To be honest I don’t know of any analyst even trying one. Well, and results should be reported. But: In this post you wrote:
❝ You may exclude a standard sample, but I can't see how you could exclude a QC, unless you have an excellent and documented analytical reason to do it.
❝ […] Your QC result is an experimental result […]
Again, what’s your rationale of “excluding a standard sample” – calibrators and QCs are prepared in exactly the same way? Both are spiked samples of known concentrations. If you ask for an “excellent and documented analytical reason” to exclude a QC, why do you not require the same for standards? Or do you? To paraphrase your statement: Your calibrator is an experimental result […]
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- outliers test for QC sample mathews 2007-10-11 07:58
- outliers test - but not for QCs! Helmut 2007-10-11 15:31
- Outlier test - but not for QC's yuvrajkatkar 2010-01-19 08:49
- Outlier test - but not for QC's H_Rotter 2010-01-19 12:55
- Outlier tests: forget it! Helmut 2010-01-19 17:36
- Outlier tests: forget it! Ohlbe 2010-01-19 19:00
- Outlier tests: forget it! Helmut 2010-01-19 19:16
- Outlier tests: forget it! Ohlbe 2010-01-19 21:00
- QCs vs. calibratorsHelmut 2010-01-19 21:49
- QCs vs. calibrators Ohlbe 2010-01-20 19:01
- QCs vs. calibrators Helmut 2010-01-20 19:26
- QCs vs. calibrators Ohlbe 2010-01-20 19:52
- QCs vs. calibrators Helmut 2010-01-20 19:26
- QCs vs. calibrators Ohlbe 2010-01-20 19:01
- Two thirds of QCs H_Rotter 2010-01-20 16:21
- Two thirds of QCs Ohlbe 2010-01-20 18:49
- Outlier tests: forget it!....what if.... moblak 2010-01-25 10:04
- Outlier tests: forget it!....what if.... Ohlbe 2010-01-25 23:19
- QCs vs. calibratorsHelmut 2010-01-19 21:49
- Outlier tests: forget it! Ohlbe 2010-01-19 21:00
- Outlier tests: forget it! Helmut 2010-01-19 19:16
- Outlier tests: forget it! Ohlbe 2010-01-19 19:00
- Outlier test - but not for QC's yuvrajkatkar 2010-01-19 08:49
- outliers test - but not for QCs! Helmut 2007-10-11 15:31
