New Insight into the Comparative Power Quality-Control Rules That Use Control Observations within a Single Analytical Run

Abstract

Abstract Vol. 39: p. 441 In the article by C.A. Parvin Entitled "New Insight into the comparative power of quality-control rules that use control observations within a single analytical run," 1993;39;440-7, the means in the first line on page 441 should have been µ1 + σb1E1 and µ2 + σb2E1. In the third paragraph on page 441, in the Sentence "Finally, I assume that total analytical imprecision increases from its stable value, σtj, to REw = 1.5σtj, because of an increase in the between-run component of imprecision from its stable value, σwj, to an out-of-control value, σwj," the word "between" should have been "within." pp. 565-572. In the review by M.H. zweig and G. Campbell entitled "Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine," 1993;39:561-77, the label for the x-axis at the bottom of each of Figures 4 through 12 should read "False-positive fraction (1 - specificity)." Correspondingly, the label at the top of each Figure should read "True-negative fraction (specificity)." Note that the (corect) dual labeling of the x-axis solves the problem of whether to plot specificity or 1 - specificity on the x-axis. pp. 767-769. In the article by K. Emancipator and M.H. Kroll entitled "A quantitative measure of nonlinearity," 1993;39:766-772, three equations were printed incorrectly. They should have read as follows: Equation 6a (p. 767) Equation 8b (p. 768) and on p. 769, the last unnumbered equation