Online fault detection in reram-based ai/ml
US-2024289239-A1 · Aug 29, 2024 · US
US8938409B2 · US · B2
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Publication number | US-8938409-B2 |
| Application number | US-201414245333-A |
| Country | US |
| Kind code | B2 |
| Filing date | Apr 4, 2014 |
| Priority date | Jun 23, 2011 |
| Publication date | Jan 20, 2015 |
| Grant date | Jan 20, 2015 |
A practical reading order for non-experts. Skip the full description unless you need deep technical detail.
What the patent document calls the invention.
A short plain-language summary of the technical disclosure.
Who owns or filed the patent and who is credited as inventor.
Filing, priority, publication, and grant dates set the timeline.
The legal scope of protection — read this for what is actually claimed.
Technology tags used to group this patent with similar filings.
Prior art links and similar publications in this corpus.
Official abstract text for this publication.
A method analyzes a quality control strategy. A quality control rule can define quality control events and specifying a control limit for determining whether a quality control event passes or fails. The quality control rule and a number of patient samples tested between quality control events can be received. A first expected number of correctible errors when a quality control event fails can be computed based on the quality control rule and the number of patient samples tested between quality control events. A second expected number of final errors that are not correctible when a quality control event fails can be computed based on the quality control rule and the number of patient samples tested between quality control events. An assessment of the quality control rule can include the first expected number of correctible errors and the second expected number of final errors as separate values.
Opening claim text (preview).
What is claimed is: 1. A method for analyzing a quality control strategy, the method comprising: receiving, with a processor, a quality control rule defining quality control events and specifying a control limit for determining whether a quality control event passes or fails; receiving, with the processor, a number of patient samples tested between quality control events; computing, by the processor, a first expected number of correctible errors when a quality control event fa…
Related publications grouped by family.
Free tools are coming soon. Tell us what you want to track and we'll notify you.
Answers are generated from the same data shown on this page.