Towards more complete specifications for acceptable analytical performance – a plea for error grid analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examine limitations of common analytical performance specifications for quantitative assays. Specifications can be either clinical or regulatory. Problems with current specifications include specifying limits for only 95% of the results, having only one set of limits that demarcate no harm from minor harm, using incomplete models for total error, not accounting for the potential of user error, and not supplying sufficient protocol requirements. Error grids are recommended to address these problems as error grids account for 100% of the data and stratify errors into different severity categories. Total error estimation from a method comparison can be used to estimate the inner region of an error grid, but the outer region needs to be addressed using risk management techniques. The risk management steps, foreign to many in laboratory medicine, are outlined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.247 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".