Standard error definitions

Standard errors are given in brackets in the last digits quoted, except for Chedin and Cihla,1 who do not give uncertainties. Note that is based on a definition of the bending co-ordinate as sin 0, where 0 is the bending angle see discussion in refs. 12 and 63. 

The definition of the summary statistic (in this case, the 95th percentile) leads to the option of — or opportunity for — a statistical assessment of compliance and so provides the facility to estimate the standard error in this estimate and the statistical confidence of failure. This is crucial because compliance is assessed by taking samples, a process associated with high errors and the consequent risk of misdirected action. 

Both the standard deviation and variance are positive definite. The standard error... 

Inspection of the calculations in Table 6 shows that the estimate s(H) is determined almost entirely by the results of group 1 (runs 1, 2 and 3). Furthermore, j(JE) is considerably greater than the standard error of any individual rate coefficient estimated from the scatter of the experimental values of In a about the fitted straight line. In other words, it is the inability to replicate the experimental conditions exactly rather than the definition of the straight lines which determines the precision of the final estimate of the rate coefficient. In fact, we show in the calculations set out in Table 7 that the replicate experiments in Group 1 differ significantly from one another. It is because these results are so discordant that we have... 

There are several concepts and terms that are essential to discussions about QA, even the concept itself. While at a very detailed level any definition can be challenged as being too narrow or too broad, the definitions presented below are useful (20). It should be noted that these terms are quite recent in definition and are not usually given in statistics books. Other terms like pollution have evolved over hundreds of years (21). Some key terms used in the field like reproducibility, standard deviation, standard error, replicate analysis, blanks, spiked samples and blind samples are self-explanatory. 

By definition, the experimental unit is the smallest unit randomly allocated to a distinct level of a treatment factor. Note that if there is no randomization, there is no experimental unit and (in nearly all cases) no experiment. Although it is possible to perform experiments without randomization, it is difficult to do well, and risky unless the experimental system is very well understood (7). Randomization is important for several reasons. Randomization changes the sources of bias into sources of variation in general, a noisy assay is better than a biased assay. Further, randomization allows estimates of variation to represent variation in the population this in turn justifies statistical inference (standard errors, confidence intervals, etc.). A common practice in cell-culture bioassay is to rotate among a small collection of layouts rather than use random allocation. Whereas rotation among a collection of layouts is certainly better than a fixed layout, it is both possible and practical to use carefully structured randomization on a routine basis, particularly when using a robot. 

Equation 2.62 indicates that 68.3 percent of the total area under the Gaussian is included between m — a and m + a. Another way of expressing this statement is to say that if a series of events follows the normal distribution, then it should be expected that 68.3 percent of the events will be located between m — a and m + O. As discussed later in Sec. 2.13, Eq. 2.62 is the basis for the definition of the standard error. 

Both standard and probable errors are based on a Gaussian distribution. That is, it is assumed that the result R is the average of individual outcomes that belong to a normal distribution. This does not introduce any limitation in practice because, as stated in Sec. 2.10.2, the individual outcomes of a long series of any type of measurement are members of a Gaussian distribution. With the Gaussian distribution in mind, it is obvious that the definition of the standard error is based on Eq. 2.62. If a result is R and the standard error is E, then E=cr. 

According to the definition of the standard error, if is the standard error of h, it ought to have such a value that a new average h would have a 68.3 percent chance of falling between h — and h + cr. To obtain the standard error of n, consider Eq. 2.71 as a special case of Eq. 2.36a. The quantity is a linear function of the uncorrelated random variables n, n2,...,n, each with standard deviation o-. Therefore... 

In much of statistics, the notion of a population is stressed and the subject is sometimes even defined as the science of making statements about populations using samples. However, the notion of a population can be extremely elusive. In survey work, for example, we often have a definite population of units in mind and a sample is taken from this population, sometimes according to some well-specified probabilistic rule. If this rule is used as the basis for calculation of parameter estimates and their standard errors, then this is referred to as design-based inference (Lehtonen and Pahkinen, 2004). Because there is a form of design-based inference which applies to experiments also, we shall refer to it when used for samples as sampling-based inference. 

A more rigorous definition of uncertainty (Type A) relies on the statistical notion of confidence intervals and the Central Limit Theorem. The confidence interval is based on the calculation of the standard error of the mean, Sx, which is derived from a random sample of the population. The entire population has a mean /x and a variance a. A sample with a random distribution has a sample mean and a sample standard deviation of x and s, respectively. The Central Limit Theorem holds that the standard error of the mean equals the sample standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of samples ... 

Standard errors of the constants. When the standard errors are less than 20% of the values, one can consider the values to be well determined, and thus the term containing this constant definitely present. On the other hand, values such as2 2or-i + i show complete lack of significance, and suggest that the term may be absent. The meaning of this is that the data do not detect the presence of the term. 

There exist further possibilities for systematic errors in samples of patients with OCD (Table 2). The lack of a standard case definition of OCD leads to difficulties in obtaining accurate epidemiological data because a precise case definition is a prerequisite for the gathering of epidemiological data. Consequently, in contact... 

Mandel s test was summarized as a comparison of the residual standard deviation of the linear model with that of the nonlinear mode . Such a definition results in the well-known conceptual Fischer-Snedecor s F test (Fexperimentai = s ylx,Mn / s y x,nof), whcrc s Stands for standard error of the regression, lin for straight line model and non for non-linear model (here a quadratic one, although this is not mandatory). Note that although the term variance should be used senso stricto instead of standard error, this is not relevant for our discussions here. The definition was then resolved to eqn A 1.1 below (numbered 51 in ref. 8) ... 

Three times the estimated standard errors. ) See figure for definitions of a, p, and 7 Assumed. 

Fig. 16. Bioaccumulation factor (normalized to organism lipid and sediment organic carbon) as a function number of aromatic rings in PAHs. Mean and standard error of the mean BAFi c for PAHs consists of 2-6 aromatic rings. Each mean represents several PAHs and sediments (sites = 7 for amphipod = 5 for polychaete). [See Table 1 for PAHs and ring categories.] Polychaete (Armandia brevis) and amphipod (Rhepoxynius abronius) individuals were exposed to Raritan-Hudson estuary (New York) sediments for 10 d. See Appendix for BAFioc definition. (Data from Meador et al. 1995.)...

The proposed model function shown in Figure 9.44 is the model described in the referenced source for the data set. The function definitions and initial parameter estimations are shown in Listing 9.12 along with the evaluated model parameters with standard errors printed in the selected output listing. The model has four parameters, but the data range covers a sufficient range of the functional dependency to obtain good estimates of all the parameters. 

The temperature compensator on a pH meter varies the instrument definition of a pH unit from 54.20 mV at 0°C to perhaps 66.10 mV at 60°C. This permits one to measure the pH of the sample (and reference buffer standard) at its actual temperature and thus avoid error due to dissociation equilibria and to junction potentials which have significant temperature coefficients. 

Uncertainty expresses the range of possible values that a measurement or result might reasonably be expected to have. Note that this definition of uncertainty is not the same as that for precision. The precision of an analysis, whether reported as a range or a standard deviation, is calculated from experimental data and provides an estimation of indeterminate error affecting measurements. Uncertainty accounts for all errors, both determinate and indeterminate, that might affect our result. Although we always try to correct determinate errors, the correction itself is subject to random effects or indeterminate errors. 

At X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) of samples of the limited weight is perspective to prepare for specimens as polymeric films on a basis of methylcellulose [1]. By the example of definition of heavy metals in film specimens have studied dependence of intensity of X-ray radiation from their chemical compound, surface density (P ) and the size (D) particles of the powder introduced to polymer. Have theoretically established, that the basic source of an error of results XRF is dependence of intensity (F) analytical lines of determined elements from a specimen. Thus the best account of variations P provides a method of the internal standard at change P from 2 up to 6 mg/sm the coefficient of variation describing an error of definition Mo, Zn, Cu, Co, Fe and Mn in a method of the direct external standard, reaches 40 %, and at use of a method of the internal standard (an element of comparison Ga) value does not exceed 2,2 %. Experiment within the limits of a casual error (V changes from 2,9 up to 7,4 %) has confirmed theoretical conclusions. 

Returning to the standard, this clause also only addresses the correction and prevention of nonconformities, i.e. departures from the specified requirements. It does not address the correction of defects, of inconsistencies, of errors, or in fact any deviations from your internal specifications or requirements. As explained in Part 2 Chapter 13, if we apply the definition of nonconformity literally, a departure from a requirement that is not included in the Specified Requirements is not a nonconformity and hence the standard is not requiring corrective action for such deviations. Clearly this was not the intention of the requirement because preventing the recurrence of any problem is a sensible course of action to take, providing it is economical. Economics is, however, the crux of the matter. If you include every requirement in the Specified Requirements , you not only overcomplicate the nonconformity controls but the corrective and preventive action controls as well. 

The corrective action requirements fail to stipulate when corrective action should be taken except to say that they shall be to a degree appropriate to the risks encountered. There is no compulsion for the supplier to correct nonconformities before repeat production or shipment of subsequent product. However, immediate correction is not always practical. You should base the timing of your corrective action on the severity of the nonconformities. All nonconformities are costly to the business, but correction also adds to the cost and should be matched to the benefits it will accrue (see later under Risks). Any action taken to eliminate a nonconformity before the customer receives the product or service could be considered a preventive action. By this definition, final inspection is a preventive action because it should prevent the supply of nonconforming product to the customer. However, an error becomes a nonconformity when detected at any acceptance stage in the process, as indicated in clause 4.12 of the standard. Therefore an action taken to eliminate a potential nonconformity prior to an acceptance stage is a preventive action. This rules out any inspection stages as being preventive action measures - they are detection measures only. 

A. Standard series method (Section 17.4). The test solution contained in a Nessler tube is diluted to a definite volume, thoroughly mixed, and its colour compared with a series of standards similarly prepared. The concentration of the unknown is then, of course, equal to that of the known solution whose colour it matches exactly. The accuracy of the method will depend upon the concentrations of the standard series the probable error is of the order of + 3 per cent, but may be as high as + 8 per cent. 

---