The superiority of likelihood-based confidence interval for variance estimation in a single group.

IF 1.1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Translational and Clinical Pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-17 DOI:10.12793/tcp.2025.33.e1
Soo-Min Jung, Minkyu Kim, Kyun-Seop Bae
{"title":"The superiority of likelihood-based confidence interval for variance estimation in a single group.","authors":"Soo-Min Jung, Minkyu Kim, Kyun-Seop Bae","doi":"10.12793/tcp.2025.33.e1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The χ<sup>2</sup> distribution is commonly used for estimating confidence interval (CI) for variance. However, the validity of the CIs from this method is highly dependent on the assumption that the population follows a normal distribution. Additionally, the Wald CI used in this method does not account for the asymmetry. To address this limitation and provide more accurate interval estimates, especially with relatively small sample sizes, a likelihood interval (LI) approach was adopted. The Likelihood-Based Interval R software package was developed to implement this approach. We conducted a simulation to compare 3 methods for interval estimation of variance in a single group, using the luteinizing hormone () data available with the default R installation and random small sample sizes of 10, 20, and 30 from a standard normal distribution: the conventional χ<sup>2</sup> interval method, the LI method, and the likelihood-based confidence interval (LBCI) method. The average width (standard deviation) of the CIs from the simulation with data was 0.2582 (0.0534) for LBCI, 0.2604 (0.0538) for LI, and 0.2667 (0.0551) for CI, indicating that LBCI produced the narrowest CIs. The interval coverage was 95.24% for CI, 95.38% for LBCI, and 95.45% for LI. In simulations with small sample sizes, LBCI and LI exhibited narrower widths than CI, while the coverage was similar. Therefore, LBCI or LI for variance estimation can be considered a more efficient option than the conventional method.</p>","PeriodicalId":23288,"journal":{"name":"Translational and Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"33 1","pages":"10-18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11976149/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational and Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12793/tcp.2025.33.e1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The χ2 distribution is commonly used for estimating confidence interval (CI) for variance. However, the validity of the CIs from this method is highly dependent on the assumption that the population follows a normal distribution. Additionally, the Wald CI used in this method does not account for the asymmetry. To address this limitation and provide more accurate interval estimates, especially with relatively small sample sizes, a likelihood interval (LI) approach was adopted. The Likelihood-Based Interval R software package was developed to implement this approach. We conducted a simulation to compare 3 methods for interval estimation of variance in a single group, using the luteinizing hormone () data available with the default R installation and random small sample sizes of 10, 20, and 30 from a standard normal distribution: the conventional χ2 interval method, the LI method, and the likelihood-based confidence interval (LBCI) method. The average width (standard deviation) of the CIs from the simulation with data was 0.2582 (0.0534) for LBCI, 0.2604 (0.0538) for LI, and 0.2667 (0.0551) for CI, indicating that LBCI produced the narrowest CIs. The interval coverage was 95.24% for CI, 95.38% for LBCI, and 95.45% for LI. In simulations with small sample sizes, LBCI and LI exhibited narrower widths than CI, while the coverage was similar. Therefore, LBCI or LI for variance estimation can be considered a more efficient option than the conventional method.

基于似然置信区间的单组方差估计的优越性。
χ2分布通常用于估计方差的置信区间(CI)。然而,这种方法的ci的有效性高度依赖于总体服从正态分布的假设。此外,在这种方法中使用的Wald CI没有考虑到不对称性。为了解决这一限制并提供更准确的区间估计,特别是在样本量相对较小的情况下,采用了似然区间(LI)方法。开发了基于似然的区间R软件包来实现这种方法。我们进行了模拟,比较了三种方法对单个组方差的区间估计,使用标准正态分布中具有默认R安装和随机小样本量为10、20和30的黄体生成素()数据:传统的χ2区间方法、LI方法和基于似然的置信区间(LBCI)方法。LBCI的CI平均宽度(标准差)为0.2582 (0.0534),LI为0.2604 (0.0538),CI为0.2667(0.0551),表明LBCI产生的CI最窄。区间覆盖率CI为95.24%,LBCI为95.38%,LI为95.45%。在小样本量的模拟中,LBCI和LI表现出比CI更窄的宽度,而覆盖率相似。因此,对于方差估计,LBCI或LI可以被认为是比传统方法更有效的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Translational and Clinical Pharmacology
Translational and Clinical Pharmacology Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Translational and Clinical Pharmacology (Transl Clin Pharmacol, TCP) is the official journal of the Korean Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (KSCPT). TCP is an interdisciplinary journal devoted to the dissemination of knowledge relating to all aspects of translational and clinical pharmacology. The categories for publication include pharmacokinetics (PK) and drug disposition, drug metabolism, pharmacodynamics (PD), clinical trials and design issues, pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics, pharmacometrics, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilence, and human pharmacology. Studies involving animal models, pharmacological characterization, and clinical trials are appropriate for consideration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信