LIMS results and batch review

Define the quantity before defining the conversion.

Write a destination-field definition that includes the analyte, sample basis and unit. “Concentration” alone may allow a vial concentration, an original-sample concentration and an amount per dry mass to land in the same column. Those are different quantities even when some reports use similar names.

Inspect a representative export together with the method and preparation records. Identify whether a value is observed or calculated, whether software has applied a factor, and where that fact is recorded. If the export omits the basis, obtain it through a supported source or route the result for review. A familiar filename or column heading is insufficient evidence for a missing correction state.

Keep unit conversion and dilution correction as separate steps.

The unit conversion follows (mg ÷ 1,000) / (mL ÷ 1,000), so the two factors cancel: 0.82 mg/mL = 0.82 g/L. For row A only, the supported original-sample calculation is then 0.82 × 10 = 8.2 g/L. This assumes the result and factor have the meanings stated in the example; it is not a general recovery or potency correction.

Record each transformation and its evidence separately. A source result may already incorporate dilution, recovery, dry-mass correction or another method-specific calculation. Do not apply an extra factor just because a preparation record contains it. Keep working precision through the arithmetic and apply the method’s reporting rules at the reporting boundary.

Preserve qualified and missing results.

An empty source cell is not zero. A result written as “<0.10” is also not an ordinary measured value of 0.10. Define how qualifiers, limits, missing values and text-only outcomes travel through the connection. If the receiving design separates numeric value and qualifier, preserve both and verify what downstream calculations are allowed to use.

Dimensional compatibility is necessary but insufficient. Converting a mass concentration into a molar concentration needs additional defined substance information. Converting a volume using a density needs an applicable density and its context. Keep those outside a simple mg/mL-to-g/L rule instead of silently extending that rule.

Write a transformation record that another scientist can reproduce.

For row A, record the exact source row and file, the source quantity 0.82 mg/mL in the measured vial, the destination definition of original-sample concentration in g/L, the unit factor 1 and the supported preparation factor 10. Link the preparation instance rather than merely a method’s usual dilution. Retain mapping revision M-812-1 and its result 8.2 g/L as an illustrative transformation record. Row B requires a different correction decision even though its final quantity is also 8.2 g/L.

Now test a qualified variant: <0.10 mg/mL on a confirmed vial basis with a supported tenfold factor becomes <1.0 g/L in the original sample, retaining the qualifier. It is not a measured result of 1.0 g/L and must not silently enter an ordinary average as one. If the preparation factor is missing, the unit conversion can still express the vial limit as <0.10 g/L, but the original-sample field stays unavailable. This separates a usable partial transformation from a falsely completed result.

Have the scientist compare these expected values against the source report and the receiving record. Have the implementer also test empty text, a nonnumeric status and an unexpected unit. Record the handling of each before enabling unattended use; accepting a number syntactically does not establish its scientific meaning.

Configure a reviewable source-to-result mapping in Seal.

Use separate fields for the source value, unit, result basis and normalised result, with References to the source File and preparation. Attach the conversion formula to the normalised Number field. Explicitly require the expected source basis and correction state before producing an original-sample value; preserve an unresolved outcome when those inputs are absent.

Use a mapping assessment record to hold the approved definition and verification evidence. A proposed result-review Check can require a resolved mapping, preparation identity and complete transformation evidence. Confirm how the connection implements that rule and how updates are versioned. A formula warning is useful feedback, but the workflow must explicitly configure any required Check before it becomes a publication control.

Source result

Keep the original representation available before applying a mapping.

Run and source row — Text / Reference

RUN-812 and the stable row identity from the export contract.

Reported value — Number

The original numeric value without replacing it with a converted value.

Reported unit — Text

The original mg/mL label, including its stated quantity context.

Result basis — Select

Measured vial, original sample or unresolved, based on source evidence.

Source export — Reference to File

The retained file containing the result and relevant metadata.

Preparation and mapping

Separate sample preparation from the arithmetic used to express the result.

Preparation evidence — Reference

The recorded dilution associated with this sample and preparation.

Dilution factor — Number

10 where supported; a missing factor remains missing.

Source correction state — Select

Whether the source result already includes the preparation correction.

Mapping revision — Text / Reference

The reviewed source-to-destination quantity and conversion definition.

Normalised result

Describe the quantity the laboratory intends to use.

Sample and preparation — References

The scientific identities the result belongs to.

Original-sample concentration — Number

8.2 g/L for A and B; unavailable for C until resolved.

Transformation evidence — Text / References

Source value, unit factor, preparation factor and mapping revision.

Mapping assessment — Select / Text

Resolved or requiring review, with the reason retained.

An already-corrected export

Input: Import row B with 8.2 mg/mL and the recorded factor of 10.

Expected: The original-sample field shows 8.2 g/L, not 82; the transformation records why no dilution factor was applied.

A qualified source value

Input: Supply “<0.10 mg/mL” where the connection previously received plain numeric values.

Expected: The qualifier is retained or the row requires mapping review. It is not silently reported as a measured 0.10.

A missing factor

Input: Remove preparation-factor evidence from row A while leaving its vial basis.

Expected: The source result remains visible; the original-sample value stays unresolved instead of assuming a factor of one.