On the subject in the title: An inter-laboratory comparison on one lot, tabulated Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Collecting what is known about inter-laboratory comparison in one place, because it is currently spread across a category, two tag pages and a thread that is hard to find.
This is a summary rather than new work, and I have attributed each part to where I found it.
I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
A stability-indicating method is one demonstrated to resolve the analyte from its degradation products, usually through forced degradation. Calling a method stability-indicating without that work is a claim rather than a property.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An inter-laboratory comparison on one lot, tabulated — what changed since
An inter-laboratory comparison on one lot, tabulated — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of inter-laboratory…
|
+24 | 28 | 3.3k | 7mo |
|
LOD and LOQ: definitions people get wrong
LOD and LOQ: definitions people get wrong — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of LOD and LOQ is wrong? I ask because I have been treating…
|
2 | 43k | 8mo | |
|
Repeatability versus intermediate precision — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Repeatability versus intermediate precision — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of Repeatability…
|
4 | 21k | 5h | |
|
Repeatability versus intermediate precision
Repeatability versus intermediate precision — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trying to establish the boundary conditions on repeatability versus intermediate precision.…
|
+119 | 134 | 34k | 13mo |
|
Second pass at: Robustness: the parameters worth deliberately varying
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: Robustness: the parameters worth deliberately varying Working notes rather than a conclusion. Something about Robustness does not reconcile and I would like a…
|
+61 | 66 | 9.5k | 3mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Carryover and the ghost peak from last week's standard
On the subject in the title: Carryover and the ghost peak from last week's standard Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of carryover is wrong? I ask because I have…
|
+80 | 92 | 16k | 16mo |
|
Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments Everything below is what sits behind that. Proposing that area percent versus weight…
|
+10 | 14 | 2.1k | 2mo |
|
Gradient steepness and apparent purity: a worked comparison — the long version
Gradient steepness and apparent purity: a worked comparison — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A narrow question about Gradient steepness and apparent…
|
2 | 32k | 1d | |
|
Reading a home test result without over-claiming
Reading a home test result without over-claiming — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Collecting what is known about reading a home test result in one place, because it is…
|
+124 | 137 | 19k | 7h |
|
Why I ask for the gradient before I discuss the number
The question in the title: Why I ask for the gradient before I discuss the number I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to understand what this number means before I…
|
+35 | 39 | 4.9k | 20mo |