Bring Empower results into sample review

Keep injections, components and analytical revisions together when transferring reported results. Agree which result state the receiving workflow may use.

Three injections support one reported sample result

Illustrative identifiers distinguish acquisition, processing and the receiving result.

  1. Sample

    LIMS-S-884

    Resolve the exact laboratory sample and requested test.

  2. Injections

    INJ-41, INJ-42, INJ-43

    Keep replicate identities and their individual status.

  3. Evaluation

    Processing revision 3

    Link each selected result to the method and source evidence.

  4. Reported result

    Method-defined mean

    Retain the contributing injections and calculation rule; do not assume every row contributes.

Define the result state the receiving workflow may use.

Decide whether the workflow receives preliminary analysis, reviewed results or another explicitly identified source state. An export that exists on disk does not by itself establish approval. Preserve the available source status and distinguish it from review inside Seal or the LIMS. Each system’s review remains an explicit process.

Confirm the installed Empower reporting or integration options and the source fields available to your team. This page describes a data contract to implement, not a universal Empower driver. A provider interface or file route must be agreed for the actual installation before result exchange is enabled.

Keep the sample set, injection and component hierarchy.

One laboratory sample can have multiple injections, replicates, standards, blanks and processing results. Retain the source identities that distinguish those records. A sample-level result table should identify which injection results were used and why; it should not overwrite the previous value each time another row arrives.

Component names and reported quantities need context. Peak area, area percentage and calculated concentration are separate quantities. Preserve units, dilution information where reported, qualifiers and the processing method revision. A missing component or failed calculation is not a concentration of zero.

Make replicate and calculation rules visible.

Agree whether a receiving result represents one injection, an average, a selected passing injection or another method-defined calculation. Retain the contributing evidence and the rule. If the source already computes the reported result, avoid recomputing it incidentally during import and producing a second interpretation.

Use typed fields for results that people need to compare or query, and link the source export and report as Files. Match the laboratory sample through an explicit identifier mapping. Where a sample ID cannot be resolved, leave a visible exception instead of choosing a similarly named sample.

Keep analytical revision separate from repeat delivery.

Reprocessing can produce a different result for an existing injection. Retain the previous evidence and distinguish the processing revision from a newly acquired injection. Define whether the receiving workflow accepts a linked revision or updates selected fields under its normal change-control rules.

For an external LIMS write, record the intended operation and receiving identifier. If the response is uncertain, reconcile before repeating it. A successful upload into Seal proves file delivery; completion of result mapping and acceptance by the LIMS each require their own evidence.

Test it with your data.

Use these cases to agree and test the connection’s behaviour. They are proposed acceptance checks, not completed tests or automatic connector features.

Three injections support one reported result

A sample has three injections, one of which is excluded under the analytical method.

Expected behaviour
Preserve all three injection records and the exclusion. Use the agreed reportable result; do not average every imported value by default.
Evidence to keep
The injection population, exclusion reason, calculation context and source report used for comparison.

Reprocessing changes the reported value

The same acquired data is evaluated again and produces a revised reported result.

Expected behaviour
Distinguish the new analytical evaluation from a duplicate delivery. Keep the earlier value and route the revision through the receiving review rules.
Evidence to keep
Old and new result identities, their source reports and the LIMS acknowledgement for the accepted exchange.
More checks for this connection
  • Trace a reported value to its contributing injections and source report.
  • Import a blank, failed calculation and excluded injection without treating them as ordinary results.
  • Repeat delivery and reprocess an injection to test different revision paths.
  • Verify that imported source status does not silently perform LIMS or Seal approval.

Before you connect

Does file upload automatically populate LIMS results?

No. Collection, mapping and the receiving LIMS operation must each be configured and verified.

Can a sample have more than one Empower result?

Yes. Preserve injection, component and processing context, then apply the method’s explicit selection rule for any sample-level result.

Check your system’s connection options.

Confirm the installed version, available exports and permissions. These pages cover the source interface and link to setup instructions.

For configuration: Seal Scripts and local-file collection.

Start with one export.

Bring the source evidence and the records it needs to connect to. For this workflow, a useful starting pack is:

  • An exported result set and its matching Empower report.
  • The sample set, injection, component and result identifiers exposed by the chosen export.
  • The receiving LIMS test codes, replicate rules and allowed analytical result states.
Discuss this connection