Split sample validation

A variety of procedures are available to assess a model s true expected performance split sample validation, cross-validation, jackknifing, and bootstrapping. 

The split-sample method is often used with so few samples in the test set, however, that the validation is almost meaningless. One can evaluate the adequacy of the size of the test set by computing the statistical significance of the classification error rate on the test set or by computing a confidence interval for the test set error rate. Because the test set is separate from the training set, the number of errors on the test set has a binomial distribution. 

Cross-validation is an alternative to the split-sample method of estimating prediction accuracy (5). Molinaro et al. describe and evaluate many variants of cross-validation and bootstrap re-sampling for classification problems where the number of candidate predictors vastly exceeds the number of cases (13). The cross-validated prediction error is an estimate of the prediction error associated with application of the algorithm for model building to the entire dataset. 

Interlaboratory Quality Control. In addition to the mandatory quality control practices just outlined, the laboratory is encouraged to participate in interlaboratory programs such as relevant performance evaluation (PE) studies, analysis of standard reference materials, and split sample analyses. Participation in interlaboratory analytical method validation studies is also encouraged. 

In order to validate the commutability of the DGKC control materials it was necessary to perform split sample measurements with patient samples using the test kit in parallel to the IDMS reference procedure for progesterone. The investigation revealed for both the patient sera and the ring trial results a considerable bias in relation to the reference procedure at low progesterone concentrations. (Fig. 7). The reason for the bad performance of the test was obviously a lack of specificity rather than a lack of commutability of the control materials. At even lower progesterone concentrations the bias increased up to 1000%. It should be noted that the kit manufacturer did unfortunately not issue any lower limit of determination for his measurement procedure. 

All documents related to and created during onsite sampling, sample splitting, sample preparation, and analysis are attached to the on-site analysis report (see below). The on-site analysis report is part of the report created by the IT concerning the inspection activities and subject to the same confidentiality regime as the report itself. Under no circumstances are any of these documents sent together with samples off-site. The on-site analysis report has to provide data to validate the method as well as the analysis result in accordance with OPCW procedures and the Quality System requirements. 

The split sample approach is not an independent validation and so further validations are required, preferably in non-trial groups of patients. 

Because the PARAFAC model makes no assumptions about spectral shapes nor the structure of parameters and error terms, if two completely independent models derived from different sets of samples arrive on similar spectral shapes, it provides strong evidence that the spectra represent underlying chemical phenomena. In split-half validation, independent halves of a data set are modeled separately. The model is validated when the same components are found in each half-data set, as this result could not reasonably arise from chance alone (Harshman and Lundy, 1994). When spectrally identical components are uncovered in completely unrelated data sets, as has been reported with increasing frequency (e.g., Stedmon et al., 2007 Murphy et al., 2011 this study), it can be taken as even stronger validation that such PARAFAC components are chemically meaningful. 

Leaving out one object at a time represents only a small perturbation to the data when the number (n) of observations is not too low. The popular LOO procedure has a tendency to lead to overfitting, giving models that have too many factors and a RMSPE that is optimistically biased. Another approach is k-fold cross-validation where one applies k calibration steps (5 < k < 15), each time setting a different subset of (approximately) n/k samples aside. For example, with a total of 58 samples one may form 8 subsets (2 subsets of 8 samples and 6 of 7), each subset tested with a model derived from the remaining 49 or 50 samples. In principle, one may repeat this / -fold cross-validation a number of times using a different splitting [20]. 

Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) consists of dipping a fiber into an aqueous sample to adsorb the analytes followed by thermal desorption into the carrier stream for GC, or, if the analytes are thermally labile, they can be desorbed into the mobile phase for LC. Examples of commercially available fibers include 100-qm PDMS, 65-qm Carbowax-divinylbenzene (CW-DVB), 75-qm Carboxen-polydimethylsiloxane (CX-PDMS), and 85-qm polyacrylate, the last being more suitable for the determination of triazines. The LCDs can be as low as 0.1 qgL Since the quantity of analyte adsorbed on the fiber is based on equilibrium rather than extraction, procedural recovery cannot be assessed on the basis of percentage extraction. The robustness and sensitivity of the technique were demonstrated in an inter-laboratory validation study for several parent triazines and DEA and DIA. A 65-qm CW-DVB fiber was employed for analyte adsorption followed by desorption into the injection port (split/splitless) of a gas chromatograph. The sample was adjusted to neutral pH, and sodium chloride was added to obtain a concentration of 0.3 g During continuous... 

An extensive benchmark stndy has been carried ont in order to identify the optimal mass redaction principle(s) [6], This was achieved by assessing and validating the almost nniversally nsed mass redaction approach, grab sampling, as opposed to a comprehensive series of more advanced techniqnes and methods, 17 in total. All techniqnes and methods were tested with regard to a fall snite of qnality parameters, some scientihcally important, others related to cost and minimizing practical operating conditions and expenses. The most important merit of any mass redaction method is the ability to deliver an unbiased split of material with the smallest possible variation in repeated rnns snbject to the best possible accnracy. These two featnres are summed up in the TOS qnantitative measnre of representativeness. 

The body of samples selected is split into two subsets, namely the calibration set and the validation set. The former is used to construct the calibration model and the latter to assess its predictive capacity. A number of procedures for selecting the samples to be included in each subset have been reported. Most have been applied to situations of uncontrolled variability spanning much wider ranges than those typically encountered in the pharmaceutical field. One especially effective procedure is that involving the selection of as many samples as required to span the desired calibration range and encompassing the whole possible spectral variability (i.e. the contribution of physical properties). The choice can be made based on a plot of PCA scores obtained from all the samples. 

Calibration models were developed using process grab samples. Each sample set was split in half randomly to give independent calibration and validation sample sets. The results for the best models are shown in Table 15.5. The real-time monitoring results as seen by the process engineers and operators are shown in Eigure 15.9. 

The ideal validated method would be the one that has progressed fully through a collaborative study in accordance with international protocols for the design, conduct, and interpretation of method performance studies. A typical study of a determinative method conducted in accordance with the internationally harmonized International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)/AOAC International (AOAC) protocol would require a minimum of up to five test materials including blind replicates or split-level samples to assess within-laboratory repeatability parameters, and eight participating laboratories (15). Included with the intended use should be recommended performance criteria for accuracy, precision and recovery. 

Often the number of samples for calibration is limited and it is not possible to split the data into a calibration set and a validation set containing representative samples that are representative enough for calibration and for validation. As we want a satisfactory model that predicts future samples well, we should include as many different samples in the calibration set as possible. This leads us to the severe problem that we do not have samples for the validation set. Such a problem could be solved if we were able to perform calibration with the whole set of samples and validation as well (without predicting the same samples that we have used to calculate the model). There are different options but, roughly speaking, most of them can be classified under the generic term "cross-validation . More advanced discussions can be found elsewhere [31-33]. 

The selected subset cross-validation method is probably the closest internal validation method to external validation in that a single validation procedure is executed using a single split of subset calibration and validation data. Properly implemented, it can provide the least optimistic assessment of a model s prediction error. Its disadvantages are that it can be rather difficult and cumbersome to set it up so that it is properly implemented, and it is difficult to use effectively for a small number of calibration samples. It requires very careful selection of the validation samples such that not only are they sufficiently representative of the samples to be applied to the model during implementation, but also the remaining samples used for subset calibration are sufficiently representative as well. This is the case because there is only one chance given to test a model that is built from the data. 

For a more realistic estimate of the future error one splits the total data set into a training and a prediction part. With the training set the discriminant functions are calculated and with the objects of the prediction or validation set, the error rate is then calculated. If one has insufficient samples for this splitting, other methods of cross-validation are useful, especially the holdout method of LACHENBRUCH [1975] which is also called jackknifing or leaving one out . The last name explains the procedure For every class of objects the discriminant function is developed using all the class mem-... 

---