Back

The Statistical Monitoring by Adaptive RMSTD Tests: an efficient, informative, and customizable method for the complete internal quality control intended for low-frequent sampling of control measures

Beier, C.

2020-10-13 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2020.10.08.20209288 medRxiv
Show abstract

Two control mechanisms are relevant to perform an internal quality assurance: a permissible limit LSMC applied to single measures of control samples and a retrospective statistical analysis to detect increased imprecision and baseline drifts. A common statistical metric is the root mean square (total) deviation (RMSD/RMSTD). To focus on recent changes under low-frequent sampling conditions, the monitored amount of retrospective data is usually very small. Unfortunately, the calculated RMSTD of a small data set with n<50 samples has a significant statistical uncertainty that needs to be considered in adequate limit definitions. In particular, the minimum reasonable limit LRMSTD(n), applied to the RMSTD of a series of n samples, decreases from LSMC (e.g., 2.33*standard_deviation+bias) for n=1 towards Ltrue_RMSTD for n[-&gt;]{infty} (long-term statistics). Two mathematical approaches were derived to reliably estimate an optimal function to adjust LRMSTD(n) to small sample sizes. This knowledge led to the development of a new quality-control method: the Statistical Monitoring by Adaptive RMSTD Tests (SMART). SMART requires just one mandatory limit (either LSMC or Ltrue_RMSTD) per analyte. By definition of up to 7 possible alert levels, SMART can early recognize and evaluate both the significance of a single outlier and establishing critical trends or shifts in recent SMC data. SMART is intended to efficiently monitor and evaluate small amounts of control data.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.