非对称重尾分布下非复制方法比较数据分析的改进测量误差模型

IF 1 Q3 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY Journal of Probability and Statistics Pub Date : 2022-12-15 DOI:10.1155/2022/3453912
Jeevana Duwarahan, Lakshika S. Nawarathna
{"title":"非对称重尾分布下非复制方法比较数据分析的改进测量误差模型","authors":"Jeevana Duwarahan, Lakshika S. Nawarathna","doi":"10.1155/2022/3453912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Method comparison studies mainly focus on determining if the two methods of measuring a continuous variable are agreeable enough to be used interchangeably. Typically, a standard mixed-effects model uses to model the method comparison data that assume normality for both random effects and errors. However, these assumptions are frequently violated in practice due to the skewness and heavy tails. In particular, the biases of the methods may vary with the extent of measurement. Thus, we propose a methodology for method comparison data to deal with these issues in the context of the measurement error model (MEM) that assumes a skew-\n \n t\n \n (ST) distribution for the true covariates and centered Student’s \n \n t\n \n (cT) distribution for the errors with known error variances, named STcT-MEM. An expectation conditional maximization (ECM) algorithm is used to compute the maximum likelihood (ML) estimates. The simulation study is performed to validate the proposed methodology. This methodology is illustrated by analyzing gold particle data and then compared with the standard measurement error model (SMEM). The likelihood ratio (LR) test is used to identify the most appropriate model among the above models. In addition, the total deviation index (TDI) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used to check the agreement between the methods. The findings suggest that our proposed framework for analyzing unreplicated method comparison data with asymmetry and heavy tails works effectively for modest and large samples.","PeriodicalId":44760,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Probability and Statistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Improved Measurement Error Model for Analyzing Unreplicated Method Comparison Data under Asymmetric Heavy-Tailed Distributions\",\"authors\":\"Jeevana Duwarahan, Lakshika S. Nawarathna\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/3453912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Method comparison studies mainly focus on determining if the two methods of measuring a continuous variable are agreeable enough to be used interchangeably. Typically, a standard mixed-effects model uses to model the method comparison data that assume normality for both random effects and errors. However, these assumptions are frequently violated in practice due to the skewness and heavy tails. In particular, the biases of the methods may vary with the extent of measurement. Thus, we propose a methodology for method comparison data to deal with these issues in the context of the measurement error model (MEM) that assumes a skew-\\n \\n t\\n \\n (ST) distribution for the true covariates and centered Student’s \\n \\n t\\n \\n (cT) distribution for the errors with known error variances, named STcT-MEM. An expectation conditional maximization (ECM) algorithm is used to compute the maximum likelihood (ML) estimates. The simulation study is performed to validate the proposed methodology. This methodology is illustrated by analyzing gold particle data and then compared with the standard measurement error model (SMEM). The likelihood ratio (LR) test is used to identify the most appropriate model among the above models. In addition, the total deviation index (TDI) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used to check the agreement between the methods. The findings suggest that our proposed framework for analyzing unreplicated method comparison data with asymmetry and heavy tails works effectively for modest and large samples.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Probability and Statistics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Probability and Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3453912\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Probability and Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3453912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

方法比较研究主要集中在确定测量连续变量的两种方法是否足够一致,可以互换使用。通常,使用标准混合效应模型对假设随机效应和误差均为正态的方法比较数据建模。然而,由于偏态和重尾,这些假设在实践中经常被违背。特别是,方法的偏差可能随测量的程度而变化。因此,我们提出了一种方法比较数据的方法,以处理测量误差模型(MEM)背景下的这些问题,该模型假设真实协变量为倾斜t (ST)分布,已知误差方差的误差为中心学生t (cT)分布,称为STcT-MEM。使用期望条件最大化(ECM)算法计算最大似然估计。仿真研究验证了所提出的方法。通过分析金颗粒数据,并与标准测量误差模型(SMEM)进行比较,说明了该方法的可行性。使用似然比(LR)检验从上述模型中找出最合适的模型。此外,采用总偏差指数(TDI)和一致性相关系数(CCC)来检验方法之间的一致性。研究结果表明,我们提出的分析具有不对称和重尾的非重复方法比较数据的框架对中等和大样本有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Improved Measurement Error Model for Analyzing Unreplicated Method Comparison Data under Asymmetric Heavy-Tailed Distributions
Method comparison studies mainly focus on determining if the two methods of measuring a continuous variable are agreeable enough to be used interchangeably. Typically, a standard mixed-effects model uses to model the method comparison data that assume normality for both random effects and errors. However, these assumptions are frequently violated in practice due to the skewness and heavy tails. In particular, the biases of the methods may vary with the extent of measurement. Thus, we propose a methodology for method comparison data to deal with these issues in the context of the measurement error model (MEM) that assumes a skew- t (ST) distribution for the true covariates and centered Student’s t (cT) distribution for the errors with known error variances, named STcT-MEM. An expectation conditional maximization (ECM) algorithm is used to compute the maximum likelihood (ML) estimates. The simulation study is performed to validate the proposed methodology. This methodology is illustrated by analyzing gold particle data and then compared with the standard measurement error model (SMEM). The likelihood ratio (LR) test is used to identify the most appropriate model among the above models. In addition, the total deviation index (TDI) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used to check the agreement between the methods. The findings suggest that our proposed framework for analyzing unreplicated method comparison data with asymmetry and heavy tails works effectively for modest and large samples.
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
Journal of Probability and Statistics
Journal of Probability and Statistics STATISTICS & PROBABILITY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Flexible Lévy-Based Models for Time Series of Count Data with Zero-Inflation, Overdispersion, and Heavy Tails Exponentially Generated Modified Chen Distribution with Applications to Lifetime Dataset Bayesian Estimation of the Stress-Strength Reliability Based on Generalized Order Statistics for Pareto Distribution Monitoring Changes in Clustering Solutions: A Review of Models and Applications Fitting Time Series Models to Fisheries Data to Ascertain Age
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1