Comparisons of outlier tests for potency bioassays
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potency bioassays are used to measure biological activity. Consequently, potency is considered a critical quality attribute in manufacturing. Relative potency is measured by comparing the concentration-response curves of a manufactured test batch with that of a reference standard. If the curve shapes are deemed similar, the test batch is said to exhibit constant relative potency with the reference standard, a critical requirement for calibrating the potency of the final drug product. Outliers in bioassay potency data may result in the false acceptance/rejection of a bad/good sample and, if accepted, may yield a biased relative potency estimate. To avoid these issues, the USP<1032> recommends the screening of bioassay data for outliers prior to performing a relative potency analysis. In a recently published work, the effects of one or more outliers, outlier size, and outlier type on similarity testing and estimation of relative potency were thoroughly examined, confirming the USP<1032> outlier guidance. As a follow-up, several outlier detection methods, including those proposed by the USP<1010>, are evaluated and compared in this work through computer simulation. Two novel outlier detection methods are also proposed. The effects of outlier removal on similarity testing and estimation of relative potency were evaluated, resulting in recommendations for best practice.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it