Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

Bias estimation in method comparison studies.

Robert T Magari1

  • 1Beckman Coulter Corporation, Miami, FL 33116-9015, USA. robert_magari@coulter.com

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
|December 14, 2004
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

Monocyte Distribution Width: A Novel Indicator of Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 in High-Risk Emergency Department Patients.

Critical care medicine·2019
Same author

In-use stability modeling.

Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis·2011
Same author

Comparison of the ATS versus EU Mini Wright peak flow meter in normal volunteers.

The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma·2010
Same author

Modeling the effects of storage temperature excursions on shelf life.

Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis·2008
Same author

Uncertainty of measurement and error in stability studies.

Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis·2007
Same author

Total lung capacity: single breath methane dilution versus plethysmography in normals.

Respirology (Carlton, Vic.)·2007
Same journal

Correction.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Leveraging external controls in clinical trials: estimands, estimation, assumptions.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Special issue of nonclinical statistics in regulatory applications guest editors' notes.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Comparison of flexible parametric modeling and nonparametric methods to estimate restricted mean survival time: A simulation study.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Simulated treatment comparisons with jackknife pseudo values for estimating population-adjusted marginal treatment effects.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Sample sizes for randomized controlled trials utilizing Bayesian response adaptive randomization for continuous outcomes.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
See all related articles
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

This study introduces a maximum likelihood method to estimate total bias between analytical methods, separating it into constant and proportional components for each subject. This approach aids in understanding method agreement and identifying sources of disagreement.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Method Comparison Studies

Background:

  • Comparing analytical methods often relies on paired data from multiple subjects.
  • Bias in these comparisons can manifest as constant or proportional differences.
  • Understanding and quantifying bias is crucial for method validation and quality control.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop a maximum likelihood estimation approach for total bias between two analytical methods.
  • To partition the total bias into constant and proportional components for individual subjects.
  • To provide a statistical framework for assessing agreement and identifying sources of disagreement.

Main Methods:

  • Employs maximum likelihood estimation for bias assessment.
  • Considers normal, binomial, or Poisson distributions for the response variable.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Assumes subjects are a random sample from a normally distributed population.
  • Applies the method to real-world data, including blood cell counts and hemoglobin measurements.

    • Main Results:

    • Provides estimates for total, constant, and proportional biases between analytical methods.
    • Demonstrates the application using real biological data.
    • The partitioning of bias offers insights into the origins of discrepancies between methods.

    Conclusions:

    • The proposed method allows for robust estimation and partitioning of bias between analytical methods.
    • This approach facilitates hypothesis testing and graphical interpretation of method agreement.
    • Identifying constant and proportional bias aids in developing targeted remedial strategies for method improvement.