Incurred Sample Reproducibility: Views and Recommendations by the European Bioanalysis Forum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following intensive discussions, review, alignment of procedures and multiple surveys among their member companies, the European Bioanalysis Forum (EBF) is providing a recommendation on how to integrate incurred sample reproducibility (ISR) in the bioanalytical process. The recommendation aims to provide guidance throughout the lifecycle of a validated method, including the application of the method in study support. In its recommendation, the EBF considers both the internal discussions with EBF member companies, as well as the input provided in international meetings where ISR was discussed. The ultimate goal of the EBF recommendation is to ensure that bioanalytical methods can provide accurate and reproducible concentration data for pharmacokinetic and/or toxicokinetic evaluation, without any compromise, while safeguarding the optimal use of laboratory resources.
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 | 0.250 | 0.258 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.044 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".