Oral anti-cancer chemotherapy: social representations and medical practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative methods hold an important place in drug testing, filling central needs in screening and analyses, among others, linked to per se legislation. Nevertheless, the bioanalytical method validation guidelines do not discuss this type of method or describe method validation procedures ill-adapted to qualitative methods. The output of qualitative methods are typically categorical, binary results, such as presence/absence or above cut-off/below cut-off. As the goal of any method validation is to demonstrate fitness for use under production conditions, qualitative validation guidelines should evaluate performance based on discrete, binary results instead of the continuous measurements obtained from the instrument (e.g. area). A tentative validation guideline for threshold qualitative methods was developed by in silico modelling of measurements and derived binary results. This preliminary guideline was applied to a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for 40 analytes, each with a defined threshold concentration. Validation parameters calculated from the analysis of 30 samples spiked above and below the threshold concentration (false negative rate, false positive rate, selectivity rate, sensitivity rate and reliability rate) showed a surprisingly high failure rate. Overall, 13 out of the 40 analytes were not considered validated. A subsequent examination found that this was attributable to an appreciable shift in the standard deviation of the area ratio on a day-to-day basis, a previously undescribed and unaccounted-for behaviour in the qualitative threshold method validation literature. Consequently, the developed guideline was modified and used to validate a qualitative threshold method, based on the binary results for performance evaluation and incorporating measurement uncertainty.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".