Sensitivity--a criterion for the comparison of methods of test

Abstract

In the evaillation of mall Y methods of test, t h e t \\'O usual cri tena-precision and aCCl!-racy-are inwmcient. Accuracy is only applica ble wh ere compari sons with a standard can be made. Pr ec i~ion, when interpreted as d egree of r ep roducibiltty, is ]Jot necessarily a measu r e of merit, becallse a me thod may be high ly reproducible merely because it is too crude to detect small variations.To obtain a quantitative measure of merit of test mothods, a no\y concept-se nsitivity-is introdueed. If lV is a measure of some property Q, and lIM its standard de\' iation, the sensitivity of lIf, denoled "' ;II, is defined by the relation "'u=(dM/dQ) / IIM. It follows from this definition that lhe ~cnsit.ivi l v of a test method mayor mal' not be constant fOl' all values of the properly Q. A slatislCcal t est of significance -is derived for the ratio of sensitivities of alternatiye methods of test. Unlike the standa rd deviation and the coefficient of variation, sensitivity is a lllC'aSllre of merit that IS invaria nt with respect lo any functional transformation of the mcasnI"emC' nt , and is therefore independent of the scale in which the measurement is expressed .

Uncertainty estimation and figures of merit for multivariate calibration (IUPAC Technical Report)

“…This parameter is defined as the ratio between sensitivity and instrumental noise. It appears to be more useful than "plain" sensitivity, because it is independent of the specific technique, equipment, and scale employed [66,67]. This parameter has unit concentration -1 , and its reciprocal value defines the minimum concentration difference that can be appreciated across the linear range of the employed technique.…”

Robbins‐monro Procedures for Tailored Testing*

“…The meaning and justification of I (e) x x will be described here by paraphrasing Mandel and Stiehler (1954):…”

<title>Comparative study of sensitivity and detection limit for the protein bovine serum albumen using a new tensiograph assay against the standard UV-visible assay</title>

“…The standard approach to quantifying sensitivity of instrumental methods of analysis for the calibration sensitivity, analytical sensitivities and detection limits proposed by Mandel and Stiehier [3], Kaiser [4] for the UV-visible have been adapted directly for the multianalyser.…”