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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Cited by
Goniewicz, M. L., Smith, D. M., Edwards, K. C., Blount, B. C., Caldwell, K. L., Feng, J., Wang, L., Christensen, C., Ambrose, B., Borek, N., et al. (2018) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5937 · Cited by 564
Travison, T. G., Vesper, H. W., Orwoll, E., Wu, F., Kaufman, J. M., Wang, Y., Lapauw, B., Fiers, T., Matsumoto, A. M., & Bhasin, S. (2017) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2016-2935 · Cited by 326
Ye, X., Wong, L.-Y., Bishop, A. M., & Calafat, A. M. (2011) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1002701 · Cited by 295
Twenty-Four Hour Human Urine and Serum Profiles of Bisphenol A during High-Dietary Exposure
Teeguarden, J. G., Calafat, A. M., Ye, X., Doerge, D. R., Churchwell, M. I., Gunawan, R., & Graham, M. K. (2011) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr160 · Cited by 215
Zhang, C., Sundaram, R., Maisog, J., Calafat, A. M., Barr, D. B., & Buck Louis, G. M. (2015) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.001 · Cited by 135
Zhou, H., Wang, Y., Gatcombe, M., Farris, J., Botelho, J. C., Caudill, S. P., & Vesper, H. W. (2017) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-017-0529-x · Cited by 48
Self-citation
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
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.