Comparisons of outlier tests for potency bioassays
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.
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 | 0.048 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".