Dataset Information

Long-term repeatability and interlaboratory reproducibility of high-precision ID-TIMS U-Pb geochronology.

ABSTRACT: Age determination of minerals using the U-Pb technique is widely used to quantify time in Earth's history. A number of geochronology laboratories produce the highest precision U-Pb dates employing the EARTHTIME ²⁰²Pb-²⁰⁵Pb-²³³U-²³⁵U tracer solution for isotope dilution, and the EARTHTIME ET100 and ET2000 solutions for system calibration and laboratory intercalibration. Here, we report ET100 and ET2000 solution data from the geochronology laboratory of University of Geneva obtained between 2008 and 2021 and compare the most recent data with results from the geochronology laboratories of Princeton University and ETH Zürich. This compilation demonstrates that (i) the choice of the thermal ionization mass spectrometer model has no influence on precision and accuracy of the data; (ii) the often observed excess scatter of apparent ET100 solution ²⁰⁶Pb/²³⁸U dates can be mitigated by more careful tracer-sample equilibration; and (iii) natural zircon reference materials are not suitable for evaluating intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility, since they combine several phenomena of natural system complexities (especially domains of different age within the same zircon grain, and residual loss of radiogenic lead in domains of high decay damage after chemical abrasion pre-treatment). We provide our best estimates of apparent dates for the ET100 solution (²⁰⁶Pb/²³⁸U date, 100.173 ± 0.003 Ma), for ET2000 solution (²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb date, 1999.935 ± 0.063 Ma), as well as for natural reference zircon Temora-2 (²⁰⁶Pb/²³⁸U date, 417.353 ± 0.052 Ma). These data will allow U-Pb laboratories to evaluate their analytical performance and to independently calibrate non-EARTHTIME tracer solutions in use.

SUBMITTER: Schaltegger U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8262554 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace, and assess the agreement with measurements obtained by Allegro Topolyzer and IOLMaster.MethodsThe right eyes of 100 normal subjects were prospectively scanned 3 times using all the 4 devices. Another observer performed additional 3 consecutive scans using the Topcon KR-1W and iTrace in the same session. About one week later, the first observer repeated the measurements using the Topcon KR-1W and iTrace. The steep keratometry (Ks), flat keratometry (Kf), mean keratometry (Km), J0 and J45 were analyzed. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurements were evaluated by the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), coefficient of variation (CoV), test-retest repeatability (2.77Sw), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreements between devices were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and 95% limits of agreement (LoA).ResultsIntraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of the Ks, Kf and Km showed a CoV of no more than 0.5%, a 2.77Sw of 0.70 D or less, and an ICC of no less than 0.99. However, J0 and J45 showed poor intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility (all ICCs not greater than 0.446). Statistically significant differences existed between Topcon KR-1W and IOLMaster, Topcon KR-1W and iTrace, Topcon KR-1W and Topolyzer, iTrace and Topolyzer, iTrace and IOLMaster for Ks, Kf and Km measurements (all P < 0.05). The mean differences between Topcon KR-1W, iTrace, and the other 2 devices were small. The 95% LoA were approximately 1.0 D to 1.5 D for all measurements.ConclusionsThe Ks, Kf and Km obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace showed excellent intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility in normal eyes. The agreement between Topcon KR-1W and Topolyzer, Topcon KR-1W and IOLMaster, iTrace and Topolyzer, iTrace and IOLMaster, Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were not so good, they should not be interchangeable in clinical application. Given that the intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of corneal astigmatism measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were poor, it should be cautious that Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were applied for the preparation of toric lens implantation.

Project description:The application of toxicogenomics as a predictive tool for chemical risk assessment has been under evaluation by the toxicology community for more than a decade. However, toxicogenomics predominately remains a tool for investigative research rather than for regulatory risk assessment. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the current generation of microarray technology in combination with an in vitro experimental design was capable of generating robust, reproducible data of sufficient quality to show promise as a tool for regulatory risk assessment. To this end, we designed a prospective collaborative study to determine the level of inter- and intra-laboratory reproducibility between three independent laboratories. All test sites adopted the same protocols for all aspects of the toxicogenomic experiment including cell culture, chemical exposure, RNA extraction, microarray data generation and analysis. As a case study, the genotoxic carcinogen B[a]P and the human hepatocyte cell line HepG2 were used to generate three comparable toxicogenomic data sets. High levels of technical reproducibility were demonstrated using a widely employed gene expression microarray platform. While differences at the global transcriptome level were still observed between the test sites, a common subset of B[a]P responsive genes was identified across all test sites which included both genes previously reported in the literature as B[a]P responsive in addition to the same most highly up and down regulated genes. Pending further analysis, these preliminary data show promise that the current generation of microarray technology in combination with a standard in vitro experimental design can produce robust data that can be reproducibly generated in independent laboratories. Future work will need to determine whether in vitro model(s) can be not only reproducible but also predictive for a range of toxic chemicals with different mechanisms of action. Such an approach may potentially be part of future in vitro testing regimes for regulatory risk assessment.

Project description:To assess the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of ocular parameters measured by the Tomey OA-2000 biometer, and to compare them with those measured by the IOLMaster.In this prospective study, the right eyes of 108 healthy subjects were included. Three consecutive scans were obtained by 2 observers using the Tomey OA-2000, and in the same session one observer used the IOLMaster (version 5.4.4.0006) for the measurements. About 1 week later, 3 scans were obtained by one observer using the Tomey OA-2000. The axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), keratometer readings, pupil diameter (PD) and corneal diameter (CD) values measured by the Tomey OA-2000 and IOLMaster were analyzed. The coefficient of variation (CoV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), within subject standard deviation (Sw) and 2.77Sw were calculated to assess the repeatability and reproducibility. The paired t test and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze the differences and agreements of parameters measured by the two devices, respectively.Intraobserver repeatability, and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of the AL, CCT, ACD, LT, Kf, Ks, Km, PD and CD values measured by the Tomey OA-2000 biometer showed a CoV of less than 1% except that for PD, and an ICC of more than 0.97 except that for PD and CD. The AL, Kf, Ks, Km and CD values measured by the Tomey OA-2000 were 0.058 ± 0.094 mm, 0.088± 0.150 diopters (D), 0.163 ± 0.170 D, 0.127 ± 0.117 D and 0.171 ± 0.217 mm lower than those measured by the IOLMaster, respectively (all Ps < 0.05). However, the ACD values from the two devices were comparable (P = 0.169). The 95% linite of agreement (LoA) of the AL, ACD, CD and all keratometer readings were no more than 0.24 mm, 0.14 mm 0.60 mm and 0.5 D, respectively.Except for the PD and CD, the ocular parameters measured by the Tomey OA-2000 were highly repeatable and reproducible. Except for the CD value, there was good agreement of ocular parameters measured by the Tomey OA-2000 and the IOLMaster in healthy eyes.

Project description:PurposeAn ever-growing number of predictive models used to inform clinical decision making have included quantitative, computer-extracted imaging biomarkers, or "radiomic features." Broadly generalizable validity of radiomics-assisted models may be impeded by concerns about reproducibility. We offer a qualitative synthesis of 41 studies that specifically investigated the repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features, derived from a systematic review of published peer-reviewed literature.Methods and materialsThe PubMed electronic database was searched using combinations of the broad Haynes and Ingui filters along with a set of text words specific to cancer, radiomics (including texture analyses), reproducibility, and repeatability. This review has been reported in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. From each full-text article, information was extracted regarding cancer type, class of radiomic feature examined, reporting quality of key processing steps, and statistical metric used to segregate stable features.ResultsAmong 624 unique records, 41 full-text articles were subjected to review. The studies primarily addressed non-small cell lung cancer and oropharyngeal cancer. Only 7 studies addressed in detail every methodologic aspect related to image acquisition, preprocessing, and feature extraction. The repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features are sensitive at various degrees to processing details such as image acquisition settings, image reconstruction algorithm, digital image preprocessing, and software used to extract radiomic features. First-order features were overall more reproducible than shape metrics and textural features. Entropy was consistently reported as one of the most stable first-order features. There was no emergent consensus regarding either shape metrics or textural features; however, coarseness and contrast appeared among the least reproducible.ConclusionsInvestigations of feature repeatability and reproducibility are currently limited to a small number of cancer types. Reporting quality could be improved regarding details of feature extraction software, digital image manipulation (preprocessing), and the cutoff value used to distinguish stable features.

Dataset Information

Long-term repeatability and interlaboratory reproducibility of high-precision ID-TIMS U-Pb geochronology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets