Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 30, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
CUSUM-Logistic Regression analysis for the rapid detection of errors in clinical laboratory test results
Maureen L Sampson1, Verena Gounden1, Hendrik E van Deventer1
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Building 10, Room 2C-407, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Objective:
The main drawback of the periodic analysis of quality control (QC) material is that test performance is not monitored in time periods between QC analyses, potentially leading to the reporting of faulty test results. The objective of this study was to develop a patient based QC procedure for the more timely detection of test errors.
Method:
Results from a Chem-14 panel measured on the Beckman LX20 analyzer were used to develop the model. Each test result was predicted from the other 13 members of the panel by multiple regression, which resulted in correlation coefficients between the predicted and measured result of >0.7 for 8 of the 14 tests. A logistic regression model, which utilized the measured test result, the predicted test result, the day of the week and time of day, was then developed for predicting test errors. The output of the logistic regression was tallied by a daily CUSUM approach and used to predict test errors, with a fixed specificity of 90%.
Results:
The mean average run length (ARL) before error detection by CUSUM-Logistic Regression (CSLR) was 20 with a mean sensitivity of 97%, which was considerably shorter than the mean ARL of 53 (sensitivity 87.5%) for a simple prediction model that only used the measured result for error detection.
Conclusion:
A CUSUM-Logistic Regression analysis of patient laboratory data can be an effective approach for the rapid and sensitive detection of clinical laboratory errors.
Related Concept Videos
Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test
Contaminants and Errors
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...

