Abstract
Technical advances in assay methods over the past decades have made reliable measurement of analytes at extremely low concentrations a reality. The potential utility of this enhancement in assay resolution for clinical and laboratory studies, particularly those focusing on pharmacokinetics and metabolism, is obvious. However, any potential gains may be lost by failure of the investigator to appreciate the nuances and limitations of the specific assay being used. In particular, if the study design does not incorporate appropriate measures to minimize any potential confounding effects of assay limitations, the resulting ambiguity in interpreting the data may be great enough to preclude reaching definitive conclusions. To avoid this particular type of experimental failure, scientists should be sufficiently aware of assay-related issues to be able to function as intelligent ‘assay consumers.’
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Carroll RJ; Ruppert D. Transformations and Weighting in Regression. Chapman and Hall: New York. 1988.
Caulcutt R; Boddy R. Statistics for Analytical Chemists. Chapman and Hall: London. 1983.
Davidian M; Giltinan DM. Nonlinear Models for Repeated Measurement Data. Chapman and Hall: London. 1995.
Davidian M; Giltinan DM. Some simple methods for estimating intraindividual variability in nonlinear mixed effects models. Biometrics, 1993, 49:59–73.
Davidian M; Haaland PD. Regression and calibration with nonconstant error variance. Chemometrics & Intel Lab Sys, 1990, 9:231–248.
Dighe SV; Adams WP. Bioequivalence: A United States Regulatory Perspective, in: Pharmaceutical Bioequivalence. Welling PG; Tse FLS; Dighe SV; Eds. Marcel Dekker: New York. 1991.
Ekins R. The precision profile: Its use in assay design, assessment and quality control, in: Immunoassays for Clinical Chemistry, Hunter WM; Corrie JET; Eds. Churchill-Livingstone: Edinburgh. 1983.
Finney DJ. Radioligand assay. Biometrics, 1976, 32: 721–740.
Giltinan DM; Davidian M. Assays for recombinant proteins: A problem in nonlinear calibration. Stat Med, 1994, 13:1165–1179.
O’Connell M; Belanger BA; Haaland PD. Calibration and assay development using the four-parameter logistic model. Chemometrics & Intel Lab Sys, 1993, 20:97–114.
Price CP; Newman DJ; Eds. Principles and Practice of Immunoassay. Stockton Press: New York. 1991.
Rodbard D; Lenox RH; Wray HL; Ramseth D. Statistical characterization of the random errors in the radioimmunoassay response variable. Clin Chem, 1976, 22:350–358.
Shah VP; Midha KK; Dighe S; McGilveray IJ; Skelly JP; Yacobi A; Layloff T; Viswanathan CT; Cook CE; McDowall RD; Pittman KA; Spector S. Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Pharm Res, 1992, 9:588–592.
Westgard JO; Barry PL; Hunt MR. A multi-rule Shewhart chart for quality control in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem, 1981, 27:493–501.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giltinan, D. (1998). Statistical Issues in Assay Development and Use. In: Clifford, A.J., Müller, HG. (eds) Mathematical Modeling in Experimental Nutrition. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 445. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1959-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1959-5_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-1961-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-1959-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive