{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021052631578947368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0077192982456140355, 'mean_word_length': 5.452488687782806, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why do different EQA schemes have apparently different limits of acceptability?

It would be logical to assume that for various EQA systems in this situation, there are comparable evaluation criteria necessary to reach equivalent conditions for accreditation organizations and for patient safety in various geographical areas. Above all, this applies to the value of the limits of acceptability (limit of acceptability means maximal allowed deviation of the participants individual result from the target value), where achieving cross compatibility should not present any fundamental problem. However, in reality, the value of the acceptance limits used in various EQA programmes differ widely. The analytes which were evaluated, as well as the acceptance limits of several selected EQA programmes, are presented in Table 1. From the data in Table 1, it is evident that the acceptance limit values differ significantly. The results from 380 to 402 participants in one control cycle SEKK (EQA system Pardubice, Czech Republic, survey AKS4/09) were evaluated. The assigned reference method values (RMV) obtained using reference method procedures were the criteria for success of the measurement results. Cholesterol determination was an exception, where for all laboratories, trimmed mean (ALTM) results were used. What are the reasons for the dramatic differences among the acceptance limits of various EQA programmes that are