Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multi‐rule quality control for the age‐related eye disease study

Caudill, Samuel P., Schleicher, Rosemary L., Pirkle, James L.·2008·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

The Age‐Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), sponsored by the National Eye Institute, was designed to study the natural history and risk factors of age‐related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract, and to evaluate the effect of high doses of antioxidants and zinc on eye disease progression. AMD and cataract are leading causes of visual impairment and blindness in the U.S., with frequency of both diseases increasing dramatically after age 65. Participants were randomly chosen to receive antioxidant or placebo tablets. Blood was drawn annually from a subset of patients, and serum concentrations of 17 different nutritional indicators were measured. Because of the complexity of the analytical methods, and possibility of instrument error due to failure of any one of many component parts, several different instruments were used for most analytes. In addition, to assure that the measurement systems were performing adequately across a wide range of concentrations, multiple control pools were monitored with analyte concentrations at low, medium, and high concentrations. We report here the multi‐rule quality control system (MRQCS) used during the later part of the trial (AREDS Phase III). This system was designed to monitor systematic error and random within‐ and among‐run error for analytical runs using 1–3 different quality control pools per run and 1–2 measurements of each pool per run. We demonstrate the features of the MRQCS using quality control (QC) data associated with vitamin C measurements. We also provide operating characteristics to demonstrate how the MRQCS responds to increases in systematic and/or random error. Published in 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.3222

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
Caudill, S. P., Schleicher, R. L., & Pirkle, J. L.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-03-14
Volume
27
Issue
20
Pages
4094-4106
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2171015613
Cited by
298
References
1
FWCI
6.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multi‐rule quality control for the age‐related eye disease study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.3222
The paper
Caudill, S. P., Schleicher, R. L., & Pirkle, J. L. (2008). Multi‐rule quality control for the age‐related eye disease study. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3222

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.