Procedure for the Selection and Validation of a Calibration Model I—Description and Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calibration model selection is required for all quantitative methods in toxicology and more broadly in bioanalysis. This typically involves selecting the equation order (quadratic or linear) and weighting factor correctly modelizing the data. A mis-selection of the calibration model will generate lower quality control (QC) accuracy, with an error up to 154%. Unfortunately, simple tools to perform this selection and tests to validate the resulting model are lacking. We present a stepwise, analyst-independent scheme for selection and validation of calibration models. The success rate of this scheme is on average 40% higher than a traditional "fit and check the QCs accuracy" method of selecting the calibration model. Moreover, the process was completely automated through a script (available in Supplemental Data 3) running in RStudio (free, open-source software). The need for weighting was assessed through an F-test using the variances of the upper limit of quantification and lower limit of quantification replicate measurements. When weighting was required, the choice between 1/x and 1/x2 was determined by calculating which option generated the smallest spread of weighted normalized variances. Finally, model order was selected through a partial F-test. The chosen calibration model was validated through Cramer-von Mises or Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality testing of the standardized residuals. Performance of the different tests was assessed using 50 simulated data sets per possible calibration model (e.g., linear-no weight, quadratic-no weight, linear-1/x, etc.). This first of two papers describes the tests, procedures and outcomes of the developed procedure using real LC-MS-MS results for the quantification of cocaine and naltrexone.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.029 |
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".