PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10443535

Validating and comparing predictive models.

Abstract

The bias and accuracy factors introduced by Ross [Ross, T., 1996. Indices for performance evaluation of predictive models in food microbiology. J. Appl Bacteriol. 81, 501-508] for the evaluation of the performance of models in 'predictive food microbiology' are refined by basing the calculation of those measures on the mean square differences between predictions and observations. The use of the indices is extended by presenting formulae and methods which enable evaluation of the difference between alternative models for growth of an organism of interest over a domain of environmental factors. This is done by calculating the integral mean of the square differences between the models under investigation over the domain of the environmental variables common to those models, or a sub-region of it. The use of the techniques is exemplified by evaluating the difference between four published models for the growth rate of psychrotrophic pseudomonads.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Baranyi, C Pin, T Ross. 1999-06-01. Validating and comparing predictive models.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00035-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

A methodological bias toward overestimation of molecular evolutionary time scales.

There is presently a conflict between fossil- and molecular-based evolutionary time scales. Molecular approaches for dating the branches of the tree of life frequently lead to substantially deeper times of divergence than those inferred by paleontologists. The discrepancy between molecular and fossil estimates persists despite the booming growth of sequence data sets, which increasingly feeds the interpretation that molecular estimates are older than stratigraphic dates because of deficiencies in the fossil record. Here we show that molecular time estimates suffer from a methodological handicap, namely that they are asymmetrically bounded random variables, constrained by a nonelastic boundary at the lower end, but not at the higher end of the distribution. This introduces a bias toward an overestimation of time since divergence, which becomes greater as the length of the molecular sequence and the rate of evolution decrease.

Bias↗