Validation methods evaluating performance

As shown in Figure 11, before extensive validation, the performance of the method is evaluated appropriately. Column durability tests, robustness testing for the chromatographic and sample preparation conditions, analytical method evaluation ring tests (AMERTs), method capability assessments, and pre-validation studies are applied to... 

In PAT, one is often faced with the task of building, optimizing, evaluating, and deploying a model based on a limited set of calibration data. In such a situation, one can use model validation and cross-validation techniques to perform two of these functions namely to optimize the model by determining the optimal model complexity and to perform preliminary evaluation of the model s performance before it is deployed. There are several validation methods that are commonly used in PAT applications, and some of these are discussed below. 

As discussed above, the evaluation of the condensed phase probability for transitions between the vibrational states of a solute molecule is a problem in the weak coupling regime for which the short x approximation should be valid. We have performed calculations of the probability for the transition from the first excited vibrational state to the ground vibrational state of Br2 in a dense Ar fluid employing a forward-backward surface hopping method similar to the one described in the previous section. The simulation system contains one Br2 molecule and 107 Ar... 

Extent of Validation Depends on Type of Method On the one hand, the extent of validation and the choice of performance parameters to be evaluated depend on the status and experience of the analytical method. On the other hand, the validation plan is determined by the analytical requirement(s) as defined on the basis of customer needs or as laid down in regulations. When the method has been fully validated according to an international protocol [63,68] before, the laboratory does not need to conduct extensive in-house validation studies. It must only verify that it can achieve the same performance characteristics as outlined in the collaborative study. As a minimum, precision, bias, linearity, and ruggedness studies should be undertaken. Similar limited vahdation is required in cases where it concerns a fully validated method which is apphed to a new matrix, a well-established but noncol-laboratively studied method, and a scientifically pubhshed method with characteristics given. More profound validation is needed for methods pubhshed as such in the literature, without any characteristic given, and for methods developed in-house [84]. 

Use of Standardized Methods The first level of AQA is the use of validated or standardized methods. The terms validated and standardized here refer to the fact that the method performance characteristics have been evaluated and have proven to meet certain requirements. At least, precision data are documented, giving an idea of the uncertainty and thus of the error of the analytical result. In both validated and standardized methods, the performance of the method is known. 

A validation protocol is a document that describes the item to be qualified, the tests and checks to be performed, as well as the results that are expected to be obtained. It is a file in which the records, results, and evaluation of a completed validation program are assembled. It may also contain proposals for the improvement of processes and/or equipment [1]. Validation protocols are important in ensuring that documented evidence is taken which demonstrates that an equipment item, a system, a process, or a method consistently performs at a specified level... 

Probably the most common internal validation method, cross-validation, involves the execution of one or more internal validation procedures (hereby called sub-validations), where each procedure involves the removal of a part of the calibration data, use of the remaining calibration data to build a subset calibration model, and subsequent application of the removed data to the subset calibration model. Unlike the Model fit evaluation method discussed earlier, the same data are not used for model building and model testing for each of the sub-validations. As a result, they can provide more realistic estimates of a model s prediction performance, as well as better assessments of the optimal complexity of a model. 

If a model is to be used as a query to search for active molecules in a database, a common validation method is to demonstrate its performance on a database for which the pharmacological activity of each compound is known (or at least flagged as active or inactive). Most often, such databases are made artificially for this purpose. Thus, after gathering a set of active compounds, one would seed them in a larger database of randomly selected (and supposedly inactive) molecules, the idea being to mimic some HTS results. The model is finally evaluated according to its ability to search the database for the actives and perform better than a random search (enrichment). 

Quantitative structure-activity/pharmacokinetic relationships (QSAR/ QSPKR) for a series of synthesized DHPs and pyridines as Pgp (type I (100) II (101)) inhibitors was generated by 3D molecular modelling using SYBYL and KowWin programs. A multivariate statistical technique, partial least square (PLS) regression, was applied to derive a QSAR model for Pgp inhibition and QSPKR models. Cross-validation using the leave-one-out method was performed to evaluate the predictive performance of models. For Pgp reversal, the model obtained by PLS could account for most of the variation in Pgp inhibition (R2 = 0.76) with fair predictive performance (Q2 = 0.62). Nine structurally related 1,4-DHPs drugs were used for QSPKR analysis. The models could explain the majority of the variation in clearance (R2 = 0.90), and cross-validation confirmed the prediction ability (Q2 = 0.69) [ 129]. 

In practice, the number of primary and reference methods is limited. Normally an analyst will use methods that are not based on length/mass/time, and where there are no suitable reference methods available. The number of certified reference materials available to evaluate the performance of a method is also very limited. This makes it more difficult for an analytical laboratory to demonstrate to its clients that the methods used will produce results that are sufficiently accurate and precise to allow the client to reach a valid judgement. An accepted way of proceeding is to carry out method performance checks, which lead to a validated method. 

Plasma-derived therapeutic proteins are parenteral biologies that are purified on an industrial scale. All biologies derived from human sources, such as plasma, carry the risk of viral contamination. Thus, in order to market a medicinal product derived from human plasma, manufacturers must assure the absence of specific viral contamination. Virus validation studies are performed to evaluate the capacity of a manufacturing process to remove viral contaminants. Virus clearance across three different terminal inactivation steps, low pH incubation of immunoglobulins (IgG), pasteurization of albumin, and freeze dry/dry heat treatment of plasma-derived products (Factor VIII and Protein G), is discussed in this article. The data show that, like all other upstream virus reduction steps, the methods used for terminal inactivation are process and product dependent, and that the reduction factors for an individual step may be overestimated or underestimated due to inherent limitations or inadequate designs of viral validation studies. 

A distinction can be made between establishing the performance characteristics of a method and complete method validation. After the performance of a method has been assessed, complete validation requires evaluation during its application to the intended purpose, using reference methods for comparison, certified reference materials if available, and interlaboratory comparisons in order to obtain a realistic estimate of the uncertainty of routine results. It therefore follows that, where possible, laboratories should not work alone but collaborate in interlaboratory studies. 

Finally, the scarce motivation of laboratories in the validation and external performance evaluation of SMETs also has to be mentioned. This may be due to the fact that these methods are not yet extensively applied in monitoring and that the Directives usually do not clearly suggest their application in monitoring. SMETs are applied in research laboratories, but not in routine laboratories. If the Directives included the possibility of the application of these methods in monitoring, it would certainly contribute to a rapid and diffuse spread of SMETs outside the academic world. 

Problems such as swab recoverability or interference with adhesive materials are commonly encountered during the swab selection process. It is imperative that the swab selected be compatible with the diluent, the detergents, and the chemical (active/degradant) and it cannot cause interference with the method used for residue analysis, typically FIPLC and/or TOC. A swab recovery study is required for determining the acceptability of a swab. This is performed by spiking the swab with known quantities of the various chemicals under evaluation for potential carryover. The swabs need to be analyzed by the validated method to be used in the cleaning validation studies. An acceptable level of recovery should be no less than 70% and a correction factor needs to be included in final residue calculations. 

Selection of Optimal Tree. The optimal tree (most accurate tree) is the one having the highest predictive ability. Therefore, one has to evaluate the predictive error of the subtrees and choose the optimal one among them. The most common technique for estimating the predictive error is the cross-validation method, especially when the data set is small. The procedure of performing a cross validation is described earlier (see section 14.2.2.1). In practice, the optimal tree is chosen as the simplest tree with a predictive error estimate within one standard error of minimum. It means that the chosen tree is the simplest with an error estimate comparable to that of the most accurate one. 

There are a number of laboratory tests used by formulators to evaluate the various aspects of liquid hand soap or shower gel products. These include the evaluation of physical properties and various performance attributes. To validate the design of the product, consumer tests are usually necessary. Barel et al. [5] present an extensive and detailed discussion of various test methods and performance evaluations for cosmetic products. Most of these test methods also apply to liquid hand soap and shower gel. 

In-study validation entails the routine monitoring of the quality control samples to determine whether the analytical method is performing consistently over time and whether data from a particular plate or run are acceptable. In addition, especially for biomarker assays, evaluation of parallelism using incurred samples is carried out to confirm the validity and suitability of the reference standard. 

If the bioanaiyticai method is performed according to good laboratory practice (CLP), the method is described in a standard operating procedure (SOP) and the validation method is reported accordingly. In general, validated methods are used in preclinical development for toxicokinetic studies and in clinical development for all studies in which pharmacokinetics is evaluated. 

---