{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02003338898163606, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00667779632721202, 'mean_word_length': 5.377659574468085, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 1, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mathematical model for comparing proficiency testing results across analytical methods.

Proficiency testing (PT) programs may fail to establish a range of acceptable performance in a challenge when an insufficient number of participants use a particular method. In this study I analyzed a mathematical approach to establish acceptable performance in alanine aminotransferase (ALT; EC 2.6.1.2) PT challenges. This approach was derived from the mathematical model used in establishing a nationwide ALT standardization system for blood-collection facilities in 1988. A ratio of results was derived between each method in the PT program and an arbitrarily chosen "standard" method. The intent of this approach was to transform a target value for a challenge as determined in the "standard" method to units applicable to methods utilized less often. However, the high degree of variability over time in the ratios for some methods precluded general application of this approach. Therefore, although this simple mathematical method was successful in implementing an ALT standardization system across different methods, a derivation of this approach did not afford comparison of results in PT challenges.