Proficiency Testing in a Laboratory Accreditation Program for the Bacterial Ring Rot Pathogen of Potato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variability of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immunofluorescence tests for the detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. sepedonicus in potato tissue was analyzed to determine the magnitude of repeatability (within analyst variation) and reproducibility (among analyst variation) components. The analysis was based on data generated by analysts in eight laboratories testing proficiency panel samples distributed under a laboratory accreditation program. The standard deviation for repeatability of the ELISA test was small but increased at higher absorbance readings, while the standard deviation for reproducibility was larger and also increased at high absorbances. For immunofluorescence, the standard deviation for repeatability and reproducibility were similar to one another and increased with increasing bacterial concentration, as might be expected for count data and the inherent subjectivity of the test. The reproducibility standard deviation provided the basis for calculating "z-scores" by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists' procedure to evaluate proficiency of chemical analyses. More than 90 and 80% of the z-scores for samples tested in this study by ELISA and immunofluorescence, respectively, were in the acceptable range. The rescaled sums of z-scores for individual analysts were used as single combination scores to evaluate each analyst's results over all samples of a proficiency panel. This measure may be useful for tracking analyst performance on process control charts as part of a quality control system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".