使用贝叶斯方法分析生物测定数据-引物

G. Miller, W. Inkret, M. E. Schillaci, H. Martz, T. Little
{"title":"使用贝叶斯方法分析生物测定数据-引物","authors":"G. Miller, W. Inkret, M. E. Schillaci, H. Martz, T. Little","doi":"10.2172/676932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract—The classical statistics approach used in health physics for the interpretation of measurements is deficient in that it does not take into account “needle in a haystack” effects, that is, correct identification of events that are rare in a population. This is often the case in health physics measurements, and the false positive fraction (the fraction of results measuring positive that are actually zero) is often very large using the prescriptions of classical statistics. Bayesian statistics provides a methodology to minimize the number of incorrect decisions (wrong calls): false positives and false negatives. We present the basic method and a heuristic discussion. Examples are given using numerically generated and real bioassay data for tritium. Various analytical models are used to fit the prior probability distribution in order to test the sensitivity to choice of model. Parametric studies show that for typical situations involving rare events the normalized Bayesian decision level k&agr; =Lc/&sfgr;0, where &sfgr;0 is the measurement uncertainty for zero true amount, is in the range of 3 to 5 depending on the true positive rate. Four times &sfgr;0 rather than approximately two times &sfgr;0, as in classical statistics, would seem a better choice for the decision level in these situations.","PeriodicalId":251939,"journal":{"name":"Health Physics: The Radiation Safety Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ANALYZING BIOASSAY DATA USING BAYESIAN METHODS—A PRIMER\",\"authors\":\"G. Miller, W. Inkret, M. E. Schillaci, H. Martz, T. Little\",\"doi\":\"10.2172/676932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract—The classical statistics approach used in health physics for the interpretation of measurements is deficient in that it does not take into account “needle in a haystack” effects, that is, correct identification of events that are rare in a population. This is often the case in health physics measurements, and the false positive fraction (the fraction of results measuring positive that are actually zero) is often very large using the prescriptions of classical statistics. Bayesian statistics provides a methodology to minimize the number of incorrect decisions (wrong calls): false positives and false negatives. We present the basic method and a heuristic discussion. Examples are given using numerically generated and real bioassay data for tritium. Various analytical models are used to fit the prior probability distribution in order to test the sensitivity to choice of model. Parametric studies show that for typical situations involving rare events the normalized Bayesian decision level k&agr; =Lc/&sfgr;0, where &sfgr;0 is the measurement uncertainty for zero true amount, is in the range of 3 to 5 depending on the true positive rate. Four times &sfgr;0 rather than approximately two times &sfgr;0, as in classical statistics, would seem a better choice for the decision level in these situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":251939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Physics: The Radiation Safety Journal\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Physics: The Radiation Safety Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2172/676932\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Physics: The Radiation Safety Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2172/676932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:健康物理学中用于解释测量结果的经典统计方法存在缺陷,因为它没有考虑到“大海捞针”效应,即正确识别人群中罕见的事件。在健康物理测量中经常出现这种情况,使用经典统计学的处方,假阳性分数(测量为阳性的结果实际上为零的分数)通常非常大。贝叶斯统计提供了一种方法来减少错误决策(错误调用)的数量:假阳性和假阴性。我们提出了基本方法并进行了启发式讨论。用数值生成的和真实的氚生物测定数据给出了例子。采用多种分析模型拟合先验概率分布,以检验模型选择的敏感性。参数研究表明,对于涉及罕见事件的典型情况,归一化贝叶斯决策水平k&agr;=Lc/&sfgr;0,其中&sfgr;0为零真量的测量不确定度,根据真阳性率在3 ~ 5的范围内。在这些情况下,四倍的&sfgr;0,而不是像经典统计中那样大约两倍的&sfgr;0,对于决策层来说似乎是更好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ANALYZING BIOASSAY DATA USING BAYESIAN METHODS—A PRIMER
Abstract—The classical statistics approach used in health physics for the interpretation of measurements is deficient in that it does not take into account “needle in a haystack” effects, that is, correct identification of events that are rare in a population. This is often the case in health physics measurements, and the false positive fraction (the fraction of results measuring positive that are actually zero) is often very large using the prescriptions of classical statistics. Bayesian statistics provides a methodology to minimize the number of incorrect decisions (wrong calls): false positives and false negatives. We present the basic method and a heuristic discussion. Examples are given using numerically generated and real bioassay data for tritium. Various analytical models are used to fit the prior probability distribution in order to test the sensitivity to choice of model. Parametric studies show that for typical situations involving rare events the normalized Bayesian decision level k&agr; =Lc/&sfgr;0, where &sfgr;0 is the measurement uncertainty for zero true amount, is in the range of 3 to 5 depending on the true positive rate. Four times &sfgr;0 rather than approximately two times &sfgr;0, as in classical statistics, would seem a better choice for the decision level in these situations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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