Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?
Summary 1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportion...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology 2010-07, Vol.37 (7), p.692-699 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 699 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 692 |
container_title | Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Ludbrook, John |
description | Summary
1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other.
2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used.
3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences.
4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable.
5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733988684</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733988684</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE-P0zAQxS0EYrsLXwH5xillHMeOg4QQVMsWVAGHZZG4WI4zaV3yp9iJ2n77dehuxZG5zGjmvTfSjxDKYM5ivdnOWZZBwqRi8xTiFgTP5fzwhMzOh6dkBhxEwlQOF-QyhC0ACJD8OblIgUe9UDOyXrkOjace1x5DcH1HTWeaY3CB1r2ntm93xrtuTYd9T1s0YfToA42nFodNX8Wxfty32A1v6cdxoPuNs5t_Qt-_IM9q0wR8-dCvyI9P17eLZbL6dvN58WGV2CxPZSKsFVUmlShTa0pjTMoBuAJeouV1lpeVwLquc1ZBUdjKci4LicIWpihBVYxfkden3J3v_4wYBt26YLFpTIf9GHTOeaGUVFlUqpPS-j4Ej7Xeedcaf9QM9ERZb_UEU08w9URZ_6WsD9H66uHJWLZYnY2PWKPg3Umwdw0e_ztYL66_T1P0Jye_CwMezn7jf2uZ81zon19v9O3y7u7LIv2ll_weGYucxQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733988684</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Ludbrook, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, John</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other.
2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used.
3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences.
4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable.
5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-1870</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1440-1681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20337658</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Altman-Bland ; Bias ; calibration ; Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics & numerical data ; confidence interval ; Least-Squares Analysis ; Linear Models ; loss function ; Monte Carlo Method ; non-parametric methods ; outlying values ; Pharmacological Phenomena ; Physiological Phenomena</subject><ispartof>Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology, 2010-07, Vol.37 (7), p.692-699</ispartof><rights>2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1440-1681.2010.05376.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1440-1681.2010.05376.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20337658$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, John</creatorcontrib><title>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</title><title>Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology</title><addtitle>Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol</addtitle><description>Summary
1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other.
2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used.
3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences.
4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable.
5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software.</description><subject>Altman-Bland</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>calibration</subject><subject>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>confidence interval</subject><subject>Least-Squares Analysis</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>loss function</subject><subject>Monte Carlo Method</subject><subject>non-parametric methods</subject><subject>outlying values</subject><subject>Pharmacological Phenomena</subject><subject>Physiological Phenomena</subject><issn>0305-1870</issn><issn>1440-1681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE-P0zAQxS0EYrsLXwH5xillHMeOg4QQVMsWVAGHZZG4WI4zaV3yp9iJ2n77dehuxZG5zGjmvTfSjxDKYM5ivdnOWZZBwqRi8xTiFgTP5fzwhMzOh6dkBhxEwlQOF-QyhC0ACJD8OblIgUe9UDOyXrkOjace1x5DcH1HTWeaY3CB1r2ntm93xrtuTYd9T1s0YfToA42nFodNX8Wxfty32A1v6cdxoPuNs5t_Qt-_IM9q0wR8-dCvyI9P17eLZbL6dvN58WGV2CxPZSKsFVUmlShTa0pjTMoBuAJeouV1lpeVwLquc1ZBUdjKci4LicIWpihBVYxfkden3J3v_4wYBt26YLFpTIf9GHTOeaGUVFlUqpPS-j4Ej7Xeedcaf9QM9ERZb_UEU08w9URZ_6WsD9H66uHJWLZYnY2PWKPg3Umwdw0e_ztYL66_T1P0Jye_CwMezn7jf2uZ81zon19v9O3y7u7LIv2ll_weGYucxQ</recordid><startdate>201007</startdate><enddate>201007</enddate><creator>Ludbrook, John</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201007</creationdate><title>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</title><author>Ludbrook, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Altman-Bland</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>calibration</topic><topic>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>confidence interval</topic><topic>Least-Squares Analysis</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>loss function</topic><topic>Monte Carlo Method</topic><topic>non-parametric methods</topic><topic>outlying values</topic><topic>Pharmacological Phenomena</topic><topic>Physiological Phenomena</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, John</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ludbrook, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</atitle><jtitle>Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol</addtitle><date>2010-07</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>692</spage><epage>699</epage><pages>692-699</pages><issn>0305-1870</issn><eissn>1440-1681</eissn><abstract>Summary
1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other.
2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used.
3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences.
4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable.
5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>20337658</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0305-1870 |
ispartof | Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology, 2010-07, Vol.37 (7), p.692-699 |
issn | 0305-1870 1440-1681 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733988684 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Altman-Bland Bias calibration Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics & numerical data confidence interval Least-Squares Analysis Linear Models loss function Monte Carlo Method non-parametric methods outlying values Pharmacological Phenomena Physiological Phenomena |
title | Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T10%3A33%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Linear%20regression%20analysis%20for%20comparing%20two%20measurers%20or%20methods%20of%20measurement:%20But%20which%20regression?&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20and%20experimental%20pharmacology%20&%20physiology&rft.au=Ludbrook,%20John&rft.date=2010-07&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=692&rft.epage=699&rft.pages=692-699&rft.issn=0305-1870&rft.eissn=1440-1681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733988684%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733988684&rft_id=info:pmid/20337658&rfr_iscdi=true |