Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Modelling method comparison data.

G Dunn1, C Roberts

  • 1Biostatistics Group, The Medical School, University of Manchester, UK. g.dunn@man.ac.uk

Statistical Methods in Medical Research
|September 29, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Chronic sinusitis and bilateral deafness as a presentation of oesophageal stent failure: case report.

The Journal of laryngology and otology·2008
Same author

Prevalence of type-specific HPV infection by age and grade of cervical cytology: data from the ARTISTIC trial.

British journal of cancer·2008
Same author

Early experience with the TriMed fragment-specific fracture fixation system in intraarticular distal radius fractures.

The Journal of hand surgery, European volume·2008
Same author

A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies for reducing fracture risk in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis with additional data on long-term risk of fracture and cost of disease management.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)·2008
Same author

Cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and routine specialist care with and without cognitive behavioural therapy in adolescents with major depression.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2007
Same author

Phase I evaluation of CDP791, a PEGylated di-Fab' conjugate that binds vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2.

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research·2007
Same journal

A joint model for a longitudinal outcome and a progressive multistate model under a mixed observation scheme.

Statistical methods in medical research·2026
Same journal

Efficient semi-supervised estimation of optimal individualized treatment regimes with survival outcome.

Statistical methods in medical research·2026
Same journal

Asymptotic online FWER control for dependent test statistics.

Statistical methods in medical research·2026
Same journal

Regression analysis of misclassified current status data with potentially unknown test accuracy.

Statistical methods in medical research·2026
Same journal

Bayesian multivariate linear mixed-effects models with varied association structures.

Statistical methods in medical research·2026
Same journal

Inference about the ratio of age-standardized rates between two overlapping populations.

Statistical methods in medical research·2026
See all related articles

This study reviews linear regression models for comparing analytical methods, focusing on relative calibration and precision evaluation. It highlights the importance of model identifiability, random matrix effects, and robust study designs for accurate results.

Area of Science:

  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Statistical Modeling
  • Method Validation

Background:

  • Comparing analytical methods requires robust statistical approaches.
  • Evaluating method precision and relative calibration are crucial for reliable data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review linear regression models for relative method calibration and precision evaluation.
  • To address challenges in model identifiability and random matrix effects.
  • To emphasize optimal study design for method comparison.

Main Methods:

  • Exploration of various linear regression models.
  • Analysis of model constraints and identifiability assumptions.
  • Consideration of random matrix effects and specimen-specific biases.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Linear regression models can simultaneously assess method calibration and precision.
  • Identifiability requires careful consideration of model assumptions.
  • Random matrix effects can introduce systematic biases.

Conclusions:

  • A single dataset can be used for both calibration and precision evaluation.
  • Fully-informative designs with replicate measurements and large sample sizes are essential.
  • Understanding model assumptions and potential pitfalls is critical for accurate method comparison.