Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Models for combining random and systematic errors. assumptions and consequences for different models.

P H Petersen1, D Stöckl, J O Westgard

  • 1Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. phy@imbmed.ou.dk

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
|August 28, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The incidence of psychoactive substances and alcohol among impaired drivers in Denmark in 2015-2019.

Forensic science international·2022
Same author

A review on the forensic toxicology of global drug-facilitated sexual assaults.

European review for medical and pharmacological sciences·2022
Same author

Postmortem analysis of three methoxyacetylfentanyl-related deaths in Denmark and in vitro metabolite profiling in pooled human hepatocytes.

Forensic science international·2018
Same author

Authors' reply.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2017
Same author

The significance of sampling time in therapeutic drug monitoring of clozapine.

Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica·2016
Same author

Do patients initiate therapy? Primary non-adherence to statins and antidepressants in Iceland.

International journal of clinical practice·2015
Same journal

Ethical evaluation of reflex and reflective testing in conformity with ISO 15189:2022 at the value-based laboratory medicine era.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Emerging blood-based diagnostic strategies for tuberculosis.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Homocitrulline and 3-year mortality in older hospitalised adults: an exploratory study.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Impact of age partitioning on classification discordance in pediatric ferritin reference intervals.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

National implementation of LOINC: translation methodology and experience from the Polish laboratory terminology standardization project.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Harmonization of measurement units: mission impossible or ethical imperative?

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
See all related articles

This study compares three models for combining systematic and random errors: linear, squared, and combined. Each model has distinct assumptions and applications, leading to significantly different outcomes in error analysis.

Area of Science:

  • Metrology and Measurement Science
  • Statistical Error Analysis

Background:

  • Accurate error quantification is crucial for reliable scientific measurements.
  • Existing models for combining systematic and random errors have varying assumptions and applications.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate and characterize different models for handling and combining systematic and random variations/errors.
  • To analyze the purpose, application, and limitations of each model.
  • To compare the consequences of using different error combination models.

Main Methods:

  • Consideration of three distinct models: linear, squared (including classical variance and GUM), and combined.
  • Analysis of model assumptions and mathematical frameworks.
  • Calculation of bias transformation functions into imprecision based on model-specific calculations.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The linear model combines errors as |bias| + z * sigma.
  • The squared model encompasses classical variance and the Guide to Uncertainty in Measurements (GUM) approaches.
  • The combined model is designed for analytical quality specifications based on clinical outcomes.
  • Functions transforming bias into imprecision differ significantly across models due to their underlying assumptions.

Conclusions:

  • At least three distinct models exist for combining systematic and random errors.
  • Each model serves a specific purpose, relies on unique assumptions, and yields substantially different results.
  • Appropriate model selection based on the intended application is critical for accurate error assessment.