↓ Skip to main content

Uncertainty in Measurement: Procedures for Determining Uncertainty With Application to Clinical Laboratory Calculations

Overview of attention for chapter in “Advances in Clinical Chemistry”
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Uncertainty in Measurement: Procedures for Determining Uncertainty With Application to Clinical Laboratory Calculations
Book title
Advances in Clinical Chemistry
Published in
Advances in clinical chemistry, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/bs.acc.2018.02.003
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-0-12-815205-8
Authors

Frenkel, Robert B., Farrance, Ian, Robert B. Frenkel, Ian Farrance

Abstract

In Part II of this review we consider the very common case of multiple inputs to a measurement process. We derive, using only elementary steps and the basic mathematics covered in Part I, the formula for the propagation of uncertainties from the inputs to the output. The Gaussian density distribution is briefly explained, since an understanding of this distribution is needed for the determination of so-called expanded uncertainties at the end of a measurement process. The propagation formula in general involves correlations among the inputs, although in many cases these correlations can be considered negligible. Correlations, however, need to be taken into account in related matters such as line-fitting and have particular relevance to method comparisons. These topics are addressed briefly. We next discuss the important question of bias and its incorporation into the expression of uncertainty. We present, finally, six real-world cases in clinical chemistry where uncertainty in the estimated value of the measurand is calculated using the propagation formula.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Other 3 18%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Mathematics 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Advances in clinical chemistry
#170
of 281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,609
of 442,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in clinical chemistry
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 281 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.