Why Should We Multiply The Standard Deviation by 3 When We Calculate The Limit of Detection

11/29/2018 Why should we multiply the standard deviation by 3 when we calculate the limit of detection?
Join for free Login
Question Asked 4 years ago

Mohammed Alaoui Join ResearchGate to find the people and
4.15 · University of Liège research you need to help your work.
Why should we multiply the standard deviation

15+ million members
by 3 when we calculate the limit of detection?
when we would like to determine the limit of 118+ million publications
detection we always multiplicate the standard
700k+ research projects
deviation by 3 and not by another number and
the same thing about the limit of quantification
that we multiplicate the standard deviation by Join for free
10
Limit of Detection Detection Limits

Similar questions and discussions
Multivariate Statistical Analysis
How to calculate limit of detection, limit of

quantification and signal to noise ratio?
Share Question 56 answers
Popular Answers (1) Asked 5 years ago

Praveen Dhyani
Reg. Hplc standard curve calculation. Please tell
Robert James 3 years ago
me how to calculate limit of detection, limit of
McClelland
quantification and signal to noise ratio. Please…
RMIT International University
Vietnam View
How to calculate Limit of Detection (LOD)
Mohammed
Question 19 answers
There may be some confusion here. In
scientific circles (especially Medical Laboratory Asked 7 years ago
work) there are terms and measures quoted. Devsharan Verma
Devsharan Verma
LoD - Limit of detection
View
is the lowest analyte concentration likely to be Can anyone tell me how to determine the
reliably distinguished from the highest LOQ and LOD for a HPLC assay method,
apparent analyte concentration (LoB) and at practically?
which detection is feasible. LoD is determined
by utilising both the measured LoB and test Question 14 answers
replicates of a sample known to contain a low Asked 6 years ago
concentration of analyte
Harshad V. Paithankar
LoQ (limit of quantification (or quantitation) Is there any way other than prediction from
signal to noise to ratio? In case of s/n, the s/n for
LoQ is the lowest concentration at which an the peak near its base should be considered o…
analyte can not only be reliably detected but at
which some predefined goals for bias and View
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_should_we_multiply_the_standard_deviation_by_3_when_we_calculate_the_limit_of_detection 1/14
imprecision are met. The LoQ may be How to calculate LOD and LOQ of analyte by
equivalent to the LoD or it could be at a much hplc?
higher concentration
Question 11 answers
In a normal distribution 99.73% of the data Asked 2 years ago
should be within +/- 3 times your standard
Pallavi Moudgil
deviation around the mean and the distribution
extends asymptotically so it’s impossible to For calculating LOD and LOQ of analyte by hplc,
state where the limits exist for all the variation. the formula used is Factor*Standard deviation of
It is not a practical discussion when solving the respone/Slope of calibration curve. What…
real problems.
View
Lowest expected variation. If you use +/- 1.96
times your standard deviation around the New Impact factors (JCR2017) for Journals
mean, this will give you where you would are released now?
expect 95% of the data to occur. Question 324 answers
To provide a standard method for determining Asked a year ago
LoB, LoD and LoQ, Clinical and Laboratory Murtaza Sayed
Standards Institute (CLSI) has published the
New JCR 2016 has been released now. Check
guideline EP17, Protocols for Determination of
the latest impact factors for journals at the
Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation:
following link…
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. View
Protocols for Determination of Limits of What does it mean when a paper status is
Detection and Limits of Quantitation, Approved changed from "Under Review" to "Under
Guideline. Wayne, PA USA: CLSI; CLSI Editor's Evaluation" at Elsevier Editorial
document EP17. 2004 System?
A traditional and typical approach to estimate Question 24 answers
LoD consists of measuring replicates, of a zero
Asked 2 years ago
calibrator or blank sample, determining the
mean value and SD, and calculating LoD as Mahmoud M. Abdelrahman
the mean +2 SD. Variations of this approach What does it mean when a paper status is
use the mean plus 3, 4, or even 10 SDs to changed from "Under Review" after 1 month to
provide a more conservative LoD "Under Editor's Evaluation" at Elsevier Editoria…
4 Recommendations View
How can I calculate sensitivity and limit of
detection for biosensor?
All Answers (13) Question 13 answers
Asked 3 years ago
Giuseppe Altieri 4 years ago Manikandan Mayilmurugan
Università degli Studi della Basilicata can we calculate from slope of the linear
concenteration
This is related to noise (instrumental and/or of
the method), gaussian distribution and View
confidence interval around the zero. I prefer Can someone advise on how to calculate
LOD=1.96*SD to obtain a 95% confidence detection limit of an experiment related to
interval for LOD. probe concentration? Is there any formula?
3*SD is related to a confidence interval at Question 8 answers

99.7%. Asked 5 years ago
2 Recommendations Seda nur Topkaya

Mazhar Hussain 4 years ago X axis: diffferent concentrations of DNA y AXİS:
Government College University, current I have avarage standart deviation value:
Lahore 0.29 My equation: y=0,95 x+0.4467 R2=0,992…
This means that the experiment was performed View

thrice and data beyond 3 sigma limit can not
be the part of confidence limit.
1 Recommendation Got a technical question?

Rana Momani 4 years ago Get high-quality answers from experts.
Qassim University
Ask a question
Dear Mohammed
I totally agree with Guiseppe, it's about C.I Related Publications
1 Recommendation
Josh Makore 4 years ago General method for the determination of the
Department of Agricultural Research - limit of detection and the limit of guarantee of
Botswana purity in emission spectroscopy
99.7% of the observations in a normal Article

distribution (bell shaped) lie with +/-3 standard M. Matherny
deviations of the mean just repeating the same
thing as Guiseppe. View
Praktische Fehlertheorie der
2 Recommendations Röntgenspektrometrie
Anna M. Bartkowiak 4 years ago Article
University of Wroclaw
Jul 1978
Mohammed, R. Plesch
Die Qualität eines Analysenverfahrens ist in
The two-sigma or three-sigma confidence
erster Linie durch seinen Fehler gekennzeichnet,
intervals are used by people who believe that
aus dem sich als weiters wichtige Kenngrösse…
their data follow - more or less - the normal
distribution. View
Spot Analysis. XXIXXVII
What to do, if one has doubts about the
normality of his/her data? Use Tukey fences Article
instead. They are based on the 1st quartile Jan 1955
(Q1) and 3rd quartile (Q2) of the distribution of
the analysed data : Isamu Tsubaki · Shigeo Hara
XXI. Fe+++ is reduced to Fe++ by the U++++,
[Q1 - 1.5*IQR, Q3 + 1.5*IQR] the Fe++ turns pink by the alkaline solution of
dimethylglyoxime and this reaction is applied f…
where IQR = Q3 - Q1, is called the Inter-
Quartile range. View
Observations beyond the Tukey fences are

suspected to be outliers, that is coming from a
different population as the analysed one.
Tukey's fences are used in graphs called box-

and-whisker plots, (or simply box-plots)
proposed also by J, Tukey and popular in
exploratory data analysis. They show how the
distribution of the data looks like, in particular,
looking at a box-plot one may judge if the
sample distribution is likely to be a normal (i.e.
Gaussian) distribution.
Both classical two-sigma confidence intervals

and Tukey;s fences designate only some limits
beyond which data points are very unlikely to
appear.
One may have much fun (and information

about the shape of the data) drawing the
boxplots with the whiskers and Tukey's fences.
Have fun with visualisation of your data
Anna
Enobong Francis 4 years ago

Udoumoh
Federal University of Agriculture,
Makurdi
One simply wants his/her model to detect at
best a + or - 3-sigma deviation from the mean
when the observations are normal.
James Renwick Beattie 4 years ago

J Renwick Beattie Consulting
LOD pretty well covered above, but it seems

people have missed the bit about limit of
quantification. Before I cover that I just want to
check that the SD you mention is the SD for
repetitions for blank samples? The standard
approach is to work from the blanks for
determining LOD. Other approaches exist to
estimate it from standard errors within a
calibration, but if blanks are possible (in many
real world calibrations they aren't, but in most
controlled experiments they are) then use
blanks.
I've not encountered defining LOQ by

multiplying by SD of blanks by 10 before, but it
is always set more stringent. The usual way of
quantifying LOQ is to test a range of samples
from the concentration that matches the LOD
(minimum detectable quantity) up to e.g. 10x
this concentration. You then identify what
concentration at which the result is significantly
different to your LOD (using the variation in the
reps about each set of data). LOQ is the lowest
concentration at which you can definitively be
sure that the value measured is significantly
above the LOD.
LOD indicates the baseline for qualitative

confirmation (i.e. analyte was detectable/not
detectable).
LOQ indicates the baseline for quantitative

judgement on the sample (i.e. we can be
confident that the sample was approximately
this concentrated).
2 Recommendations
Herman Rubin 4 years ago

Purdue University
What "limits" to use depends on two things;

one is the probability that the parameter does
not lie within the limits, and the other is on the
value of that large a spread. In addition, there

is the problem of the posterior distribution of
the parameter, which is not in general
normal. The procedures you suggest, and
most of what is suggested by the other
responders, are for probabilities before the
action is taken, and assuming normality. If the
sample is sufficiently large, and the problem
sufficiently regular, normality can be a good
approximation, but this is not always so.
Without knowing the information asked for in

the first sentence, I cannot provide what I
consider to be the appropriate procedure.
Classical statistics fails to consider the
importance of close limits.
1 Recommendation
Dominique Desbois 4 years ago
French National Institute for
Agricultural Research
According to (Pukelsheim,1994), the "Three

Sigma Rule" has been proved for random
variables with a Lebesgue (continuous)
unimodal density with finite variance, as a
special case derived from the Visochanskij-
Petunin inequality (1980).
(Visochanskij and Petunin,1980) establishes

the following upper bound of (4/81)<0.05 for
the probability that X is located away from its
mean by more than three standard deviations,
refining the Chebyshev's inequality by a factor
of (4/9) made possible by the condition that the
distribution density would be Lebesgue
unimodal with finite variance.
(Visochanskii and Petunin,1983) demonstrates

a similar result for an arbitrary mode, extending
the Gauss inequality, known for unimodal
random variables with a zero mode.
For further readings on Gauss-Chebyshev's

inequalities, see the Thomas Selke's technical
report, available at
http://www.stat.purdue.edu/docs/research/tech-
reports/1994/tr94-17.pdf
References:
Pukelsheim F. (1984) "The Three Sigma Rule",

The American Statistician, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.
88-91.
Vysochanskij, D. F., Petunin Y. I.(1980).

"Justification of the 3σ rule for unimodal
distributions". Theory of Probability and
Mathematical Statistics 21: 25–36.
Vysochanskij, D. F., Petunin Y. I.(1983). "A

remark on the paper 'Justification of the 3σ rule
for unimodal distributions'". Theory of
Probability and Mathematical Statistics 27: 27–
29.
Herman Rubin 4 years ago

Purdue University
This is a fine argument for the probabilistic

result for a unimodal distribution.
But the rule is used to get intervals for the

parameter after after seeing the observations.
This is a totally different situation. It could in
some cases be used in Bayesian situations.
And their result only gives a .05 probability,
which is much more than the usual
assumed .0026 probability from the normal
distribution. In any case, the decision
arguments are missing from a general rule of
this type.
1 Recommendation
Dr. Shlair H Hasan 3 years ago

Salahaddin University - Erbil
This is related to noise , So (3*SD) is related to

a confidence interval at 99%.
2 Recommendations
Helena Pestana 3 years ago
ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de
Lisboa
Dear Mohammed,
Plese see if this is usefull to you.
Limit of Blank, Limit of Detection and Limit of

Quantitation
David A Armbruster1,* and Terry Pry2
Author information ► Copyright and License

information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in

PMC.
Go to:
Summary
Limit of Blank (LoB), Limit of Detection (LoD),

and Limit of Quantitation (LoQ) are terms used
to describe the smallest concentration of a

measurand that can be reliably measured by
an analytical procedure.
LoB is the highest apparent analyte

concentration expected to be found when
replicates of a blank sample containing no
analyte are tested.
LoB = meanblank + 1.645(SDblank)
LoD is the lowest analyte concentration likely

to be reliably distinguished from the LoB and at
by utilising both the measured LoB and test
replicates of a sample known to contain a low
concentration of analyte.
LoD = LoB + 1.645(SD low concentration

sample)
LoQ is the lowest concentration at which the

which some predefined goals for bias and
imprecision are met. The LoQ may be
equivalent to the LoD or it could be at a much
higher concentration.
Go to:
Introduction
Sensitivity, Analytical Sensitivity, Functional

Sensitivity, Lower Limit of Detection, LoB, LoD,
and LoQ are terms used to describe the
smallest concentration of a measurand that
can be reliably measured by an analytical
procedure. There has often been a lack of
agreement within the clinical laboratory field as
to the terminology best suited to describe this
parameter. Likewise, there have been various
methods for estimating it. Clinical laboratorians
have perhaps been lax in dealing with this
analytical issue because, in many cases, the
ability of a laboratory test to detect a very small
amount of measurand is not clinically
significant. For example, the medical decision
levels for glucose and cholesterol are so far
above the lower analytical limits of these tests
that it is highly unlikely that clinical action will
depend on measurements of these analytes at
such low concentration. Nevertheless, it is
important to fully characterise the analytical
performance of every clinical laboratory test in
order to understand its capability and
limitations, and to ensure that it is “fit for
purpose.” Moreover, defining the limits of an
assay at low concentration is directly related to
its dynamic range, or analytical measurement
range.
To provide a standard method for determining

LoB, LoD and LoQ, Clinical and Laboratory
Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation.1
The Figure taken from their document
illustrates the distinction of LoB, LoD and LoQ
values. Typically, LoQ will be found at a higher
concentration than LoD, but how much higher
depends on the specifications for bias and
imprecision used to define it. ‘Analytical
sensitivity’ defined as the slope of the
calibration curve is sometimes used as a
synonym for LoD. However, because LoD may
well reside at some concentration below the
linear range of an assay, where the calibration
curve is no longer valid, this usage should be
avoided.
Figure
Relationship between LoB, LoD and LoQ. The

solid line defines the LoB and represents the
distribution of results for a blank specimen. As
modern analysers seldom report results of less
than zero, the frequency of “zero” results is
artificially ...
All of these parameters are related but have

distinct definitions and should not be confused.
The intent is to define the smallest
concentration of analyte that can be detected
with no guarantee about the bias or
imprecision of the result by an assay, the
concentration at which quantitation as defined
by bias and precision goals is feasible, and
finally the concentration at which the analyte
can be quantitated with a linear response.
Go to:
Limit of Blank
EP17 defines LoB as the highest apparent

analyte concentration expected to be found
when replicates of a sample containing no
analyte are tested.1 Note that although the
samples tested to define LoB are devoid of
analyte, a blank (zero) sample can produce an
analytical signal that might otherwise be
consistent with a low concentration of analyte.
LoB is estimated by measuring replicates of a

blank sample and calculating the mean result
and the standard deviation (SD).
LoB=meanblank+1.645(SDblank)
Assuming a Gaussian distribution of the raw

analytical signals from blank samples, the LoB
represents 95% of the observed values. (Note:
Typical modern clinical analysers don’t

routinely display the actual analytical signal but
automatically convert it to a concentration
value. The raw analytical signal is preferable
for establishing LoB as analysers may report
all signal values below a certain fixed limit as
“zero concentration”).
The remaining 5% of blank values represent a

response that could actually be produced by a
sample containing a very low concentration of
analyte. Statistically, this false positivity is
known as a Type I (or α) error (Figure).
Conversely, while a sample that actually
contains analyte is expected to exceed the
LoB, it must also be recognised that a
proportion of very low concentration samples
will produce responses less than the LoB,
representing Type II (or β) error (Figure). Thus,
EP17 acknowledges that the overlap of the
analytical responses of blank and low
concentration is a statistical reality, and uses
LoB as a reasonable starting point for
estimating the LoD.
Go to:
Limit of Detection
Although reagent package inserts may state

that an assay has a dynamic range that
extends from zero concentration to some
upper limit, typically an assay is simply not
capable of accurately measuring analyte
concentrations down to zero. Sufficient analyte
concentration must be present to produce an
analytical signal that can reliably be
distinguished from “analytical noise,” the signal
produced in the absence of analyte.
LoD is the lowest analyte concentration likely

to be reliably distinguished from the LoB and at
which detection is feasible. It is therefore
greater than LoB (Figure). A traditional and
typical approach to estimate LoD consists of
measuring replicates, usually n=20, of a zero
mean value and SD, and calculating LoD as
the mean +2 SD. Variations of this approach
use the mean plus 3, 4, or even 10 SDs to
provide a more conservative LoD. The
assumption is that if analyte is present, it will
produce a signal greater than the analytical
noise in the absence of analyte. This is a
simple and quick method. The weakness is
that there is no objective evidence to prove
that a low concentration of analyte will indeed
produce a signal distinguishable from a blank
(zero concentration) sample. As Needleman
and Romberg noted, “It defines only the ability
to measure nothing”.2
An alternative approach utilises analysis of

samples containing small but known
concentrations of the substance of interest (be
it a drug, hormone or other analyte).3,4 The
advantage of this empirical approach is that
objective data is used to compare the
analytical response of blank and low
concentration samples to determine
conclusively what concentration of analyte is
necessary to distinguish its presence from its
absence. Various analytical specifications (e.g.
a minimum signal-to-noise ratio for a
chromatographic method or a minimum
absorbance requirement for a
spectrophotometric procedure) can be applied
to ensure that the LoD is meaningful and
clearly distinguishable from a negative or blank
sample.
As defined in EP17, LoD is determined by

utilising both the measured LoB and test
concentration of analyte.1 The mean and SD
of the low concentration sample is then
calculated according to:
LoD=LoB+1.645(SDlow concentration sample)
Again assuming a Gaussian distribution of the

low concentration samples, 95% of values will
exceed the previously defined LoB, and only
5% of low concentration samples will produce
values below the LoB and erroneously appear
to contain no analyte. Manufacturers are
expected to establish the LoB and LoD using
two or more instruments and reagent lots to
capture the expected performance of the
typical population of analysers and reagents. A
recommended practical number of LoB and
LoD samples to be used by a manufacturer to
establish these parameters is 60, while a
laboratory verifying a manufacturer’s LoD (and
possibly the LoB) is 20.
Once a provisional LoD is established, it can

be confirmed by examining the observed
values for samples containing the LoD
concentration. Some LoD sample values are
expected to be less than the estimated LoD
(Figure), but when using 1.645 SD, no more
than 5% of the values should be less than the
LoB. If the observed LoD sample values meet
this criterion, the LoD is considered
established or verified. If more than 5%
(roughly 1 out of 20 observations) of the LoD
sample values fall below LoB, the LoD is too
low and must be re-estimated (i.e. by testing a
sample of higher concentration that will
generate a higher mean and SD and thus a
higher LoD).
This is an abbreviated and simplified

description of the EP17 protocol. The guideline
contains considerably more statistical detail
and guidance, including the use of non-
parametric (non-Gaussian) techniques if
necessary. Readers are encouraged to consult
EP17 for a complete explanation of this
method for establishing and verifying LoD.1
Go to:
Limit of Quantitation
LoQ is the lowest concentration at which the

imprecision are met. “Functional sensitivity” is
defined as the concentration that results in a
CV=20% (or some other predetermined %
CV), and is thus a measure of an assay’s
precision at low analyte levels (without
addressing bias).5 It was originally developed
as a clinical diagnostic tool to characterise
thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) assay
performance in distinguishing euthyroid from
hyperthyroid patients at low TSH
concentrations. It can be expected that the
LoD lies somewhere below an assay’s
functional sensitivity.
The LoQ may be equivalent to the LoD or it

could be at a much higher concentration
(Figure); it cannot be lower than the LoD. A
LoD provides an estimate of bias and
imprecision at very low analyte concentration.
If the observed bias and imprecision at the LoD
meet the requirements for total error for the
analyte (i.e. the assay is “fit for purpose”) then:
LoQ=LoD. If the analytical goals are not met at
the LoD, a slightly higher analyte concentration
must be tested to determine the LoQ.
The Table provides a brief summary of the

features of the LoB, LoD, and LoQ.
Table
Go to:
Conclusions
It is important to fully characterise the

analytical performance of clinical laboratory
tests in order to understand their capability and
limitations, and to ensure that they are “fit for
purpose.” The terms LoB, LoD, and LoQ
describe the smallest concentration of a
measurand that can be reliably measured by
an analytical procedure.
To establish these parameters a manufacturer

would test a large number of sample replicates
to increase the robustness and the statistical

confidence of the estimate (Table 1). In
addition, a manufacturer establishing the LoB,
LoD, or LoQ should perform studies using
more than one analyser and one lot of
reagents to encompass the variability that
users can expect to encounter in the field.
Clinical laboratories can validatethese
parameters using a smaller number of samples
and likely will use only one analyser and one
lot of reagents.
LoB and LoD are important for tests used to

discriminate between the presence or absence
of an analyte (e.g. drugs, troponin, human
chorionic gonadotrophin) and LoQ, to reliably
measure low levels of hormones (e.g. TSH) for
clinical diagnosis and management and should
be incorporated as part of any method
evaluation.
Go to:
Footnotes
Competing Interests: None declared.
Go to:
References
1. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

Protocols for Determination of Limits of
Detection and Limits of Quantitation, Approved
Guideline. Wayne, PA USA: CLSI; CLSI
document EP17. 2004.
2. Needleman SB, Romberg RW. Limits of

linearity and detection of some drugs of abuse.
J Anal Toxicol.1990;14:34–8. [PubMed]
3. Lawson GM. Defining limit of detection and

limit of quantitation as applied to drug of abuse
testing: striving for a consensus. Clin Chem.
1994;40:1218–9. [PubMed]
4. Armbruster DA, Tillman MD, Hubbs LM.

Limit of detection (LOD)/limit of quantitation
(LOQ): comparison of the empirical and the
statistical methods exemplified with GC-MS
assays of abused drugs.Clin Chem.
1994;40:1233–38. [PubMed]
5. Hay ID, Bayer MF, Kaplan MM, Klee GG,

Larsen PR, Spencer CA. American Thyroid
Association assessment of current free thyroid
hormone and thyrotropin measurements and
guidelines for future clinical assays. The
Committee on Nomenclature of the American

Thyroid Association. Clin Chem.
1991;37:2002–8. [PubMed]
Have a nice time
Helena
helena
3 Recommendations
Robert James 3 years ago
McClelland
RMIT International University
Vietnam
Mohammed
There may be some confusion here. In

scientific circles (especially Medical Laboratory
work) there are terms and measures quoted.
LoD - Limit of detection
is the lowest analyte concentration likely to be

reliably distinguished from the highest
apparent analyte concentration (LoB) and at
by utilising both the measured LoB and test
concentration of analyte
LoQ (limit of quantification (or quantitation)
LoQ is the lowest concentration at which an

imprecision are met. The LoQ may be
equivalent to the LoD or it could be at a much
higher concentration
In a normal distribution 99.73% of the data

should be within +/- 3 times your standard
deviation around the mean and the distribution
extends asymptotically so it’s impossible to
state where the limits exist for all the variation.
It is not a practical discussion when solving
real problems.
Lowest expected variation. If you use +/- 1.96

times your standard deviation around the
mean, this will give you where you would
expect 95% of the data to occur.
To provide a standard method for determining

LoB, LoD and LoQ, Clinical and Laboratory
Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation:
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

Protocols for Determination of Limits of
Detection and Limits of Quantitation, Approved

Guideline. Wayne, PA USA: CLSI; CLSI
document EP17. 2004
A traditional and typical approach to estimate

LoD consists of measuring replicates, of a zero
mean value and SD, and calculating LoD as
the mean +2 SD. Variations of this approach
use the mean plus 3, 4, or even 10 SDs to
provide a more conservative LoD
4 Recommendations
Can you help by adding

an answer?
Answer
Add your answer
Add your answer
Ad
About Support
News Help center

Company FAQ
Careers
Business solutions
Recruiting
Advertising
© ResearchGate 2018. All rights reserved. Imprint · Terms · Privacy

Why Should We Multiply The Standard Deviation by 3 When We Calculate The Limit of Detection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Should We Multiply The Standard Deviation by 3 When We Calculate The Limit of Detection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/29/2018 Why should we multiply the standard deviation by 3 when we calculate the limit of detection?

Join for free Login

Question Asked 4 years ago

Why should we multiply the standard deviation

Limit of Detection Detection Limits

How to calculate limit of detection, limit of

Popular Answers (1) Asked 5 years ago

3*SD is related to a confidence interval at Question 8 answers

2 Recommendations Seda nur Topkaya

This means that the experiment was performed View

be the part of confidence limit.

1 Recommendation Got a technical question?

I totally agree with Guiseppe, it's about C.I Related Publications

99.7% of the observations in a normal Article

Observations beyond the Tukey fences are

Tukey's fences are used in graphs called box-

Both classical two-sigma confidence intervals

One may have much fun (and information

boxplots with the whiskers and Tukey's fences.

Have fun with visualisation of your data

Enobong Francis 4 years ago

James Renwick Beattie 4 years ago

LOD pretty well covered above, but it seems

I've not encountered defining LOQ by

LOD indicates the baseline for qualitative

LOQ indicates the baseline for quantitative

Herman Rubin 4 years ago

What "limits" to use depends on two things;

value of that large a spread. In addition, there

Without knowing the information asked for in

According to (Pukelsheim,1994), the "Three

(Visochanskij and Petunin,1980) establishes

(Visochanskii and Petunin,1983) demonstrates

For further readings on Gauss-Chebyshev's

Pukelsheim F. (1984) "The Three Sigma Rule",

Vysochanskij, D. F., Petunin Y. I.(1980).

Vysochanskij, D. F., Petunin Y. I.(1983). "A

Herman Rubin 4 years ago

This is a fine argument for the probabilistic

But the rule is used to get intervals for the

Dr. Shlair H Hasan 3 years ago

This is related to noise , So (3*SD) is related to

Plese see if this is usefull to you.

Limit of Blank, Limit of Detection and Limit of

David A Armbruster1,* and Terry Pry2

Author information ► Copyright and License

This article has been cited by other articles in

Limit of Blank (LoB), Limit of Detection (LoD),

to describe the smallest concentration of a

LoB is the highest apparent analyte

LoB = meanblank + 1.645(SDblank)

LoD is the lowest analyte concentration likely

LoD = LoB + 1.645(SD low concentration

LoQ is the lowest concentration at which the

Sensitivity, Analytical Sensitivity, Functional

To provide a standard method for determining

Relationship between LoB, LoD and LoQ. The

All of these parameters are related but have

EP17 defines LoB as the highest apparent

LoB is estimated by measuring replicates of a

Assuming a Gaussian distribution of the raw

Typical modern clinical analysers don’t

The remaining 5% of blank values represent a