ArticleInternational journal of analytical chemistry2025
Combinatorial Regression for Analytical Chemistry.
Article in International journal of analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Combinatorial Regression for Analytical Chemistry.International journal of analytical chemistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A current problem in analytical chemistry is to match the uncertainty of several independent sample replicates with the measurement uncertainty associated with first-order models. According to contemporary guidelines, calibration lines for method validations should be prepared with few standards, frequently without any blanks. These suggestions weaken the validity of the statistics, which are meant to address truth and accuracy rather than precision. As was previously shown when looking at the pooled calibration (PoPC) paradigm for method validation, excellent precision does not imply good accuracy. A novel technique known as combinatorial regression (CR) was created to estimate slopes, intercepts, and standard deviations to reduce disagreements regarding the computation of measurement uncertainty in accordance with the calibration line. The related standard deviations of several replicates were discovered to be too large to be applied to uncertainty. Concurrently, the idea of employing the numerical values of concentration residuals as promising estimates of measurement uncertainty arose from the fact that the standard deviations of the IUPAC equations are too small to be used in the computation of uncertainties. High-resolution continuous-source flame atomic absorption spectrometry (HR-CR FAAS), which has been demonstrated to produce inconsistent findings for the analysis of elements Na, Mg, and Ni, was used to evaluate the CR method on the determination of copper. The CR provided coefficients of variations (CVs) that rose with concentrations and number of replicates, favoring analyzing low concentrations in contrast to the IUPAC equations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.