Empower 3 Feature Release 5
Hi
when is FR5 expected for release in 2019 ?
Answers
-
Word on the street...FR5 will release before the end of July.0
-
Thanks .
The upgrade from windows 7 to windows 10 first .. anybody have plans for this ?
0 -
Our IT department is delaying upgrading Empower on account of server side advantages to FR5. Once FR5 is released, we will be given the green light to advance.
Our lace boxes are currently Windows 7 builds and are no longer supported or desired by both IT and corporate.
I work for a rather large company and this is going to be a massive deployment for us over multiple sites across the US. Our European facilities are on a similar path that I am not intimately involved with.
0 -
A few docs have been posted on the support page...declaration of conformity, release notes, admin guide, and install guide.0
-
Any useful new functions mentioned in the release notes?0
-
It really depends on your existing Empower version.0
-
refer to link for FR5 info
https://custom.cvent.com/1FD9C80743AF4F289234B8686462A9DC/files/721ad7af3aec414983f7d885f2a26df1.pdf
0 -
Thanks.
I honestly can't see who will use "Privilege to ‘View Numerical and Textual Results in Review’" although I hope FDA won't push for it in the future.
0 -
Yeah DavidHPLC that seems like a crazy option to tick when you want analysts to review data that could be changing constantly.0
-
Hi
White paper on subject
https://www.waters.com/webassets/cms/library/docs/720006090en.pdf
Why only give option to see 2D chromatogram and process and you will onlt see chromatogram ?
0 -
That white paper is exactly in line with the reason why I assumed this feature was added. Sadly, I also foresee an FDA push for this for the exact reasons discussed.
0 -
Hi .. I think I am a little confused here
are they (regulators) saying users can integrate and view outcome without having to save the result ,, and can reintegreate multiple times until obtain result required (then process as result set), which in the end is checked and QA approved ?
So would this mean acquire data - process with no integration - then add integration parameters a step at a time - process with step 1- etc
ie compare what it was before and after and confirm final integration
that means many 100s of result sets !
Wont the technical and knowledge aspect of integration be lost ?
0 -
There are multiple options when it comes to these restrictions. You don't see the Area field or the calibration curve or .. But people will just make their own CFs for calculating results so this is just a security theater
Basically you'd integrate the data based on how it looks visually, process that, see results, reintegrate, hope you got it right this time, reprocess...
In a perfect world methods are perfect, samples are perfect, integration is easy, sample parallels give identical chromatography. .. In that world this might be a good addition but I don't see nor value nor need for it in real world labs today.1 -
I agree, but I have seen all too often people determine when integration is appropriate based upon the result being generated.
Label claim for a component in a product is 0.25%. Integration option A gives me a result of 0.222%, while option B gives me 0.248% ... both look just as good as the other. Option B wins because that's the better result!
1 -
If they look equally acceptable, a new method is probably called for as that's close to a 9% difference! That said, there are less dramatic instances where this does come up. In my experience, people will game the integration a bit in an attempt to meet suitability criteria for runs that should really be done over.shaunwat said:...Integration option A gives me a result of 0.222%, while option B gives me 0.248% ... both look just as good as the other. Option B wins because that's the better result!0 -
so is/will the FR 5 "Privilege to ‘View Numerical and Textual Results in Review’" going to be a process improvement?.. I guessing not
Will the days of one sample set and one result set be a thing of the past ? if indeed this is ever achievable in the Empower processing 'process'
0 -
The purpose of these controls were to afford options to Empower customers. Waters does not usually tell customers what they should do, but offer options. The reasoning behind why these were added; it was likely a customer request based on customer needs - aka CAPAs.0
-
.0
-
Dan_Ramlose said:
If they look equally acceptable, a new method is probably called for as that's close to a 9% difference! That said, there are less dramatic instances where this does come up. In my experience, people will game the integration a bit in an attempt to meet suitability criteria for runs that should really be done over.shaunwat said:...Integration option A gives me a result of 0.222%, while option B gives me 0.248% ... both look just as good as the other. Option B wins because that's the better result!Apex or manual integration?I think you can always justify some% difference due to baseline.0 -
I got my FR5 upgrade media delivered today!0
-
nice !. enjoy sorting out the privileges and roles
Interesting to know your choice of tick or untick for 'View Numerical and Textual Results in Review’
0 -
Interesting conversation... and one we have had a lot. The existing tools to restrict access to some key fields, or remove the option of using calibrate/quantitate serve many customers well today in an effort to set integration parameters without bias by viewing the results. But, as noted, customers did request a stronger blinding for certain very cautious labs. I don’t envision that feature being useful in most trusted labs. But blinding during integration optimization is more sensible progression compared to saving every interim result iteration created during optimization.2
-
Blinding a result/area during optimization of integration to assure consistent and scientifically sound integration is the only way to really ensure that the analyst is processing the data rather than processing the result. When you get into low level impurities, it is just too easy to subconsciously change your parameters to get a desired result on a small peak that is an on-edge result. I imagine within the next few years FDA is going to come to just expect this, and the burden of proof to demonstrate that labs aren't massaging data will become nearly impossible without blinding. The expectation to provide full transparency to the creation and modification of data means that audit trail should allow someone to see everything the analyst saw and recreate the events and understand the rationale for each step.
this is probably the most exciting feature in FR5 IMO
1 -
pattycake813 I think that "blinding" is a better and more sensible option than "saving (and reviewing) every result you created in a typically iterative process."
Does anyone disagree?0 -
one possible (not promised) future option might be to allow a lab/ company to design how much information is "blinded".0
-
FR5 SR5 is listed on June 29, 2020. Is Waters going to put out something in Project Releases & Announcements? It would be helpful to know details!
How many of you are on FR5? Recommended? Looking into SR5 yet? Always hard to go first.
Release notes have a lot of listed new features and enhancements. I always look for info in the sections; Issues resolved in this release and Known issues in this release. However there are a ton of new/changed files that leads me to believe they have put a great deal of effort in this. Hopefully others will report the testing and confidence in this release soon.
Waters: is FR5 still supported with W7 Lace machines? How about IEEE buslace instruments? Page 8 says no longer *tested* but how does that relate to production support? Do we have to replace any IEEE to use SR5?0
