双阳性样本在Deming回归中的影响

S. Adarkwa, F. Owusu, S. Okyere
{"title":"双阳性样本在Deming回归中的影响","authors":"S. Adarkwa, F. Owusu, S. Okyere","doi":"10.1155/2022/3984857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the method comparison approach, two measurement errors are observed. The classical regression approach (linear regression) method cannot be used for the analysis because the method may yield biased and inefficient estimates. In view of that, the Deming regression is preferred over the classical regression. The focus of this work is to assess the impact of censored data on the traditional regression, which deletes the censored observations compared to an adapted version of the Deming regression that takes into account the censored data. The study was done based on simulation studies with NLMIXED being used as a tool to analyse the data. Eight different simulation studies were run in this study. Each of the simulation is made up of 100 datasets with 300 observations. Simulation studies suggest that the traditional Deming regression which deletes censored observations gives biased estimates and a low coverage, whereas the adapted Deming regression that takes censoring into account gives estimates that are close to the true value making them unbiased and gives a high coverage. When the analytical error ratio is misspecified, the estimates are as well not reliable and biased.","PeriodicalId":301406,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Using Double Positive Samples in Deming Regression\",\"authors\":\"S. Adarkwa, F. Owusu, S. Okyere\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/3984857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the method comparison approach, two measurement errors are observed. The classical regression approach (linear regression) method cannot be used for the analysis because the method may yield biased and inefficient estimates. In view of that, the Deming regression is preferred over the classical regression. The focus of this work is to assess the impact of censored data on the traditional regression, which deletes the censored observations compared to an adapted version of the Deming regression that takes into account the censored data. The study was done based on simulation studies with NLMIXED being used as a tool to analyse the data. Eight different simulation studies were run in this study. Each of the simulation is made up of 100 datasets with 300 observations. Simulation studies suggest that the traditional Deming regression which deletes censored observations gives biased estimates and a low coverage, whereas the adapted Deming regression that takes censoring into account gives estimates that are close to the true value making them unbiased and gives a high coverage. When the analytical error ratio is misspecified, the estimates are as well not reliable and biased.\",\"PeriodicalId\":301406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3984857\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3984857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在方法比较方法中,观察到两个测量误差。经典回归方法(线性回归)不能用于分析,因为该方法可能产生有偏差和无效的估计。鉴于此,Deming回归优于经典回归。这项工作的重点是评估审查数据对传统回归的影响,与考虑审查数据的Deming回归的改编版本相比,传统回归删除了审查的观测值。本研究是在模拟研究的基础上进行的,使用nlmix作为分析数据的工具。本研究共进行了8个不同的模拟实验。每个模拟由100个数据集和300个观测值组成。模拟研究表明,传统的Deming回归删除了审查的观测值,给出了有偏的估计和低覆盖率,而考虑审查的适应性Deming回归给出了接近真实值的估计,使它们无偏,并给出了高覆盖率。当分析错误率指定不当时,估计结果也不可靠且有偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of Using Double Positive Samples in Deming Regression
In the method comparison approach, two measurement errors are observed. The classical regression approach (linear regression) method cannot be used for the analysis because the method may yield biased and inefficient estimates. In view of that, the Deming regression is preferred over the classical regression. The focus of this work is to assess the impact of censored data on the traditional regression, which deletes the censored observations compared to an adapted version of the Deming regression that takes into account the censored data. The study was done based on simulation studies with NLMIXED being used as a tool to analyse the data. Eight different simulation studies were run in this study. Each of the simulation is made up of 100 datasets with 300 observations. Simulation studies suggest that the traditional Deming regression which deletes censored observations gives biased estimates and a low coverage, whereas the adapted Deming regression that takes censoring into account gives estimates that are close to the true value making them unbiased and gives a high coverage. When the analytical error ratio is misspecified, the estimates are as well not reliable and biased.
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