Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 43: 1831-1837, 1997;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (16)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pardue, H. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pardue, H. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 1997;43:1831-1837.)
© 1997 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Point/Counterpoint

Counterpoint The inseparable triad: analytical sensitivity, measurement uncertainty, and quantitative resolution

Harry L. Pardue

Abstract

The formal definition of sensitivity associates the term with the change in the response of a system for a small change of the stimulus causing the response, i.e., the ratio of the response of a system to the stimulus causing it. One interpretation of sensitivity associates the rate of change of the response for a small change of the stimulus as the slope of a calibration plot of response vs stimulus. An alternative interpretation associates sensitivity with the smallest value of the stimulus that can be resolved with a given degree of confidence, i.e., the detection limit. Applications of the first usage to analytical chemistry date at least to the beginning of this century; applications of the second interpretation are of more recent origin. The accompanying paper argues in favor of the second interpretation on the basis that, among other things, the "slope" interpretation conflicts with the formal definition of sensitivity and is meaningless as a descriptor of the performance of a measuring system. In this paper I offer arguments to support my belief that the slope definition of sensitivity is consistent with both formal definitions and accepted usage in analytical chemistry and, more importantly, that it is an invaluable descriptor of one of the most important characteristics of any analytical method. I include information to support my belief that proper use of the slope definition yields much more information than is available in the "detection limit" interpretation.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
I. Giuliani, J.-P. Bertinchant, C. Granier, M. Laprade, S. Chocron, G. Toubin, J.-P. Etievent, C. Larue, and S. Trinquier
Determination of Cardiac Troponin I Forms in the Blood of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Patients Receiving Crystalloid or Cold Blood Cardioplegia
Clin. Chem., February 1, 1999; 45(2): 213 - 222.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
R. P. Ekins
Ligand assays: from electrophoresis to miniaturized microarrays
Clin. Chem., September 1, 1998; 44(9): 2015 - 2030.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
H. L. Pardue
Dr. Pardue responds:
Clin. Chem., August 1, 1998; 44(8): 1776 - 1778.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
R. Ekins and P. Edwards
On the Meaning of ""Sensitivity"": A Rejoinder
Clin. Chem., August 1, 1998; 44(8): 1773 - 1776.
[Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.