PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2363168

[Are statistical analyses appropriate when evaluating measurements?].

A Høiseth
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The article reviews the basic principles pertaining to the evaluation of measurements. It discusses the adequacy of the statistical analyses of significance, correlation and regression in the evaluation of measurements. It is concluded that these statistical methods are unsuitable in this connection and that the methods may even be a cause of inadequate conclusions. Alternatives are presented.

Explore related subjects

BiometryStatistics as TopicEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Høiseth. 1990-06-10. [Are statistical analyses appropriate when evaluating measurements?].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2363168/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Scheimpflug records without distortion--a mythos?

The Scheimpflug principle was recommended as allowing distortion-free imaging; however, a detailed analysis reveals geometrical errors as well as distortions arising from absorption of light along the optical pathway. Correction formulas and factors will be presented and applied to the biometry of the eye.

Biometry↗
PubMed1998

On the calculation of a robust S-estimator of a covariance matrix.

An S-estimator of multivariate location and scale minimizes the determinant of the covariance matrix, subject to a constraint on the magnitudes of the corresponding Mahalanobis distances. The relationship between S-estimators and w-estimators of multivariate location and scale can be used to calculate robust estimates of covariance matrices. Elemental subsets of observations are generated to derive initial estimates of means and covariances, and the w-estimator equations are then iterated until convergence to obtain the S-estimates. An example shows that converging to a (local) minimum from the initial estimates from the elemental subsets is an effective way of determining the overall minimum. None of the estimates gained from the elemental samples is close to the final solution.

Biometry↗
PubMed1998

Statistical procedures for estimating the detection limit and determination limit of the Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay.

Novel and flexible procedures for estimating the detection limit as well as the determination limit of the Ames mutagenicity assay were proposed to evaluate the genetoxicity of a water sample. The accumulated data under the test conditions of TA 100-S9 by our group were taken as examples and analyzed to estimate the detection limit and the determination limit. The detection limit was estimated at 1.7 as the MR value when duplicate plates were used in the negative control test. However, it decreased to 1.4 as the MR level when quadruple plates were used in the negative control test. Therefore it was found that the sensitivity of the Ames mutagenicity assay was improved very easily by increasing the number of plates for the negative control test from two to four. The application of the conventional twofold rule to the data obtained with the strain TA100 was considered too conservative. The determination limit was regarded at 2.2 as the MR value under the following conditions: (a) quadruple plates were used in the negative control test; (b) three dose-steps including negative control step were designed at regular intervals; and (c) duplicate plates were used for each dose-step. It was proved by comparing data of two students that the detection limit and the determination limit estimated in this study were considered acceptable to any well trained students.

Biometry↗