Total error allowable

We find the answers to the four questions in the course of the data quality assessment, which is the scientific and statistical evaluation of data to determine if data obtained from environmental data operations are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use (EPA, 1997a). Part of DQA is data evaluation that enables us to find out whether the collected data are valid. Another part of the DQA, the reconciliation of the collected data with the DQOs, allows us to establish data relevancy. Thus, the application of the entire DQA process to collected data enables us to determine the effect of total error on data usability. 

Step 6 allows us to create a statistical approach for the evaluation of the collected data. Using a statistical test and the statistical parameters selected in Step 6, we will be able to control decision error and make decisions with a certain level of confidence. Decision error, like total error, can only be minimized, but never entirely eliminated. However, we can control this error by setting a tolerable level of risk of an incorrect decision. Conducting Step 6 enables the planning team to specify acceptable probabilities of making an error (the tolerable limits on decision errors). At this step of the DQO process, the project team will address the following issues ... 

DQIs are usually thought of as attributes of a laboratory measurement system. However, a broader definition of primary DQIs will enable us to assess the entire measurement system that includes not only the laboratory measurements but also the sampling design and field procedures. Such broad interpretation of the primary DQIs will allow us to evaluate all components of total error and with it the overall, not just the analytical, data quality. The DQI definitions (EPA, 1999a) presented in this chapter are interpreted in a manner that encompasses all qualitative and quantitative components of total error. 

It gives a more precise estimate of the treatment effect. Some of the variation in the outcome can be ascribed to concomitant variation in the covariate. This allows this variation to be removed from the total error variation against which the effect variation is compared. This means that the denominator in the effect variance/error variance ratio is smaller, making the test statistic calculated of larger magnitude. 

Intuitively, we can think of the total sampling error as the discrepancy between the sample value and the true but unknown lot value. Gy parses it into component parts, allowing us to reduce this total error by eliminating one or more of the components or moderating their effects. In some cases the word error means mistake in other cases it... 

The balance of this chapter focuses primarily on analytical quafity and the procedures by which it is monitored. Goals for analytical quafity are established in the same way that they are established for purposes of method evaluation (see Chapter 14). The philosophy is to define an allowable analytical error based on medical usefulness requirements. A total error specification is useful because it wfil permit the calculation of the sizes of random and systematic errors that have to be detected to maintain per-... 

TEa is the analytical quality requirement expressed as an allowable total error. Minimum total error requirements are... 

Define the analytical quafity requirement in the form of an allowable total error (TE ). 

The primary performance measures of a ligand-binding assay are bias/trueness and precision. These measures along with the total error are then used to derive and evaluate several other performance characteristics such as sensitivity (LLOQ), dynamic range, and dilutional linearity. Estimation of the primary performance measures (bias, precision, and total error) requires relevant data to be generated from a number of independent runs (also termed as experiments or assay s). Within each run, a number of concentration levels of the analyte of interest are tested with two or more replicates at each level. The primary performance measures are estimated independently at each level of the analyte concentration. This is carried out within the framework of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with the experimental runs included as a random effect [23]. Additional terms such as analyst, instmment, etc., may be included in this model depending on the design of the experiment. This ANOVA model allows us to estimate the overall mean of the calculated concentrations and the relevant variance components such as the within-run variance and the between-run variance. 

For each in-study run, the standard curve must satisfy criteria described in the standard-curve section however, run acceptance is based primarily on the performance of the QC samples. When using total error for ligand binding assays of macromolecules, the run acceptance criteria recommended in the precision and accuracy section requires that at least four of six (67%) QC results must be within 30% of their nominal values, with at least 50% of the values for each QC level satisfying the 30% limit. The recommended 4-6-30 rule imposes limits simultaneously on the allowable random error (imprecision) and systematic error (mean bias). If the application of an assay requires a QC target acceptance limit different than the 30% deviation from the nominal value, then prestudy acceptance criteria for precision and accuracy should be adjusted so that the limit for the sum of the interbatch imprecision and absolute mean RE is equal to the revised QC acceptance limit. 

The assumption of a normal distribution of the errors allows us to put confidence limits on the fit of the line to the data. This is carried out by the construction of an analysis of variance table (the basis of many statistical tests) in which a number of sums of squares are collected. The total sum of squares (TSS), in other words the total variation in y, is given by summation of the difference between the observed y values and their mean. 

The question can be asked, Why estimate the concrete, steel, piping, electrical, etc., when the total plant can be estimated from major equipment in one step It is better to show all of the accounts because later estimates will be made this way and the preliminary estimate can be used to check the new estimate. Further, an experienced estimator gets a feel for each account, which allows recognition of errors in early estimates. 

Modify the value obtained from the previous stage to reflect possible dependencies among error probabilities assigned to individual steps in the task being evaluated. A dependence model is provided which allows for levels of dependence from complete dependence to independence to be modeled. Dependence could occur if one error affected the probability of subsequent errors, for example if the total time available to perform the task was reduced. 

Various calibration schemes similar to those given in Section 2.2.8 were simulated. The major differences were (1) the assumption of an additional 100% calibration sample after every fifth determination (including replications) to detect instrument drift, and (2) the cost structure outlined in Table 4.6, which is sununarized in Eq. (4.2) below. The results are depicted graphically in Figure 4.5, where the total cost per batch is plotted against the estimated confidence interval CI(X). This allows a compromise involving acceptable costs and error levels to be found. 

---