Procedure for the Selection and Validation of a Calibration Model II—Theoretical Basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first part of this paper (I-Description and application), an automated, stepwise and analyst-independent process for the selection and validation of calibration models was put forward and applied to two model analytes. This second part presents the mathematical reasoning and experimental work underlying the selection of the different components of this procedure. Different replicate analysis designs (intra/inter-day and intra/inter-extraction) were tested and their impact on test results was evaluated. For most methods, the use of intra-day/intra-extraction measurement replicates is recommended due to its decreased variability. This process should be repeated three times during the validation process in order to assess the time stability of the underlying model. Strategies for identification of heteroscedasticity and their potential weaknesses were examined and a unilateral F-test using the lower limit of quantification and upper limit of quantification replicates was chosen. Three different options for model selection were examined and tested: ANOVA lack-of-fit (LOF), partial F-test and significance of the second-order term. Examination of mathematical assumptions for each test and LC-MS-MS experimental results lead to selection of the partial F-test as being the most suitable. The advantages and drawbacks of ANOVA-LOF, examination of the standardized residuals graph and residuals normality testing (Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Cramer-Von Mises) for validation of the calibration model were examined with the last option proving the best in light of its robustness and accuracy. Choosing the correct calibration model improves QC accuracy, and simulations have shown that this automated scheme has a much better performance than a more traditional method of fitting with increasingly complex models until QC accuracies pass below a threshold.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".