Internal validation accuracy

Most current studies report an internal validation accuracy without an independent validation set. When there are a sufficiently large number of samples, the whole dataset can be split into two, one for training and one for testing (validation) this method is called hold-out validation. When the number of samples is limited, leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) is a popular technique. Here, a procedure is repeated N times, and each time a different sample is left out and used for testing the model learned from the remaining (N - 1) samples. The accuracy of... 

Validated Predictive Models with High Internal External Accuracy... 

There are several potential threats to the internal and external validity of a study of diagnostic accuracy, of which only the major ones will be addressed in this section. (For more detail and examples, see Chapter 15.) Poor internal validity wiU produce bias, or systematic error, because the... 

As already discussed in Chapter 4, CRMs can be used to assess the precision and trueness of a method. Precision has already been largely studied and improved by using proper internal validation procedures and can be maintained through appropriate control charts. For all those activities, simple RMs are sufllcient. To assess trueness, the analyst has to look for external help. One simple way is to purchase a CRM. This CRM will help him to solve his accuracy problems if two conditions are fulfilled. First, he must choose an adapted CRM — representative of the daily routine samples secondly, it must be properly certified — the certified value must be a good estimate of the true value [1] ... 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Validation of steps and analytical results throughout, by independent or reference method(s), application of CRMs, RMs, contiol materials (internal QC), interlaboratory comparisons, proficiency tests to validate accuracy and precision competent analyst/specialist... 

Proposed lUPAC nomenclature is scrutinized for validity, accuracy and consistency across all branches of Chemistry, and over Science generally, by lUPAC s Interdivisional Committee on Terminology, Nomenclature and Symbols. The committee has representation from other International Scientific Unions Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (lUBMB), Crystallography (lUCr), Nutritional Sciences (lUNS), Pharmacology (lUPHAR) and Pure and Applied Physics (lUPAP), and from the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), as well as Divisional and other representatives of lUPAC. 

Space by automated model updating protocols where all new data are retrieved and used in an automated model rebuilding and validation process on a regular basis. Internal validation strategies such as cross validation and hold-out validation complement external and temporal test sets in the assessment of the generalization accuracy. 

The method of QT interval measurement is also of great importance (Salvi et al. 2010). ICH E14 recognizes that there are several different methodologies for the measurement of ECG intervals which differ in what to measure in terms of items and characteristics including conventions for lead selection, waveform presentations, definition of T-wave offset, and handling of U-waves. It is not presaiptive about the method chosen but phasizes the need to use a consistent approach. In this context, the use of a positive control such as moxifloxacin, a drug whose effects on ECG waveforms are very well known, is an internal validation of the QT interval measurement methodology and the accuracy of the ECG readers. 

Teaching of the classifier on the gathered training data. In this phase, the performance of the classifier can be optimised by adjusting parameters on an internal validation subset. The final classification accuracy can then be measured on an external validation set, which should be kept totally separate from the training and internal validation subsets. 

For a number of materials it is vital that propaty values are provided which have a validated accuracy and are identified as standard reference data (SRD), preferably with international approval and recognition. The prq>aration of such internationally approved data standards is a timeconsuming and delicate activity that requires a critical evaluation of all the available measurements with a detailed assessment of the accuracy of each individual datum reported. For these reasons, only results obtained in instruments characterized by high quality and a complete working equation based upon a sound theory can be employed for the establishment of standard reference data. Whenever possible the results of measurements made with different experimental techniques should be included. 

The method was validated in accordance to the guidelines of the international conference on harmonization (ICH). Data with respect to accuracy, within- and between run precision, recovery, detection and quantitation limits were reported and found to be within the accepted international criteria. Neither endogeneous substances nor the commonly used dmgs were found to interfere with the retention times of the analytes. Standard solutions of the dmg and quality control preparations at high and low level concentrations were demonstrated to be stable at room temperature and/or -20°C for long and short periods of time. 

CICADs are concise documents that provide summaries of the relevant scientific information concerning the potential effects of chemicals upon human health and/or the environment. They are usually based on selected national or regional evaluation documents or on existing EHCs. Before acceptance for publication as CICADs by IPCS, these documents undergo extensive peer review by internationally selected experts to ensure their completeness, accuracy in the way in which the original data are represented, and the validity of the conclusions drawn. 

GLP regulations require QA personnel to inspect/audit each study conducted, but the extent to which QA personnel are involved in software development and the val-idation/verification process varies from company to company. In some companies, there is little or no QA involvement in these processes, whereas in others QA personnel are involved. QA personnel can provide assistance in the area of vendor audits for purchased software or can conduct inspections of in-house software development to ensure that internal procedures are being followed. QA personnel, who conduct in-process inspections and review the resulting data and validation report for accuracy, could provide inspection support during the validation and verification process. During system development and validation, properly trained QA personnel can provide the regulatory advice needed to ensure that the system will meet government standards. QA personnel become more familiar with the system(s) that will be used when they are involved early in the validation process. 

In both cases, the validation process could be divided into two components reliability and relevance. Reliability (precision) is the ability of the method to obtain reproducible results between laboratories while relevance (accuracy) is defined by the comparison of the output from the applied method with the ones obtained using a gold standard test which works as a reference at international levels. 

The ability to provide accurate and reliable data is central to the role of analytical chemists, not only in areas like the development and manufacture of drugs, food control or drinking water analysis, but also in the field of environmental chemistry, where there is an increasing need for certified laboratories (ISO 9000 standards). The quality of analytical data is a key factor in successfully identifying and monitoring contamination of environmental compartments. In this context, a large collection of methods applied to the routine analysis of prime environmental pollutants has been developed and validated, and adapted in nationally or internationally harmonised protocols (DIN, EPA). Information on method performance generally provides data on specificity, accuracy, precision (repeatability and reproducibility), limit of detection, sensitivity, applicability and practicability, as appropriate. 

The CE method was validated in terms of accuracy, precision, linearity, range, limit of detection, limit of quantitation, specificity, system suitability, and robustness. Improved reproducibility of the CZE method was obtained using area normalization to determine the purity and levels of potential impurities and degradation products of IB-367 drug substance. The internal standard compensated mainly for injection variability. Through the use of the internal standard, selected for its close mobility to IB-367, the method achieved reproducibility in relative migration time of 0.13% relative standard deviation (RSD), and relative peak area of 2.75% RSD. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control. QA/QC measures included field blanks, solvent blanks, method blanks, matrix spikes, and surrogates. Percent recovery was determined using three surrogate compounds (nitrobenzene-d5, 2-fluorobiphenyl, d-terphenyl-diQ and matrix spikes (naphthalene, pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene) the recoveries ranged from 80 to 102%. Separate calibration models were built for each of the 16 PAHs using internal standards (naphthalene-dg, phenanthrene-dio, perylene-di2). Validation was performed using a contaminated river sediment (SRM 1944) obtained from NIST (Gaithersburg, MD) accuracy was <20% for each of the 16 analytes. 

The roles of method validation in the achievement of reliable results are (1) to include all possible effects or factors of influence on the final result, (2) to make them traceable to stated references [reference methods, reference materials, or International System of Units (SI)], and (3) to know the uncertainties associated with each of these effects and with the references. Validation is thus a tool to establish traceability to these references [2,4]. In this context, it is important to see the difference between traceability and accuracy. A method which is accurate, in terms of true (i.e., approximating the true value), is always traceable to what is considered to be the true value. The opposite however is not correct. A method that is traceable to a stated reference is not necessarely true (accurate). Errors can still occur in this method, depending on the reference [12]. 

---