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

Maximum likelihood techniques applied to method comparison studies.

A B Nix1, F D Dunstan

  • 1School of Mathematics, University of Wales, College of Cardiff, U.K.

Statistics in Medicine
|June 1, 1991
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

Prevalence and pattern of cognitive impairment in a community cohort of men in South Wales: methodology and findings from the Caerphilly Prospective Study.

Neuroepidemiology·2008
Same author

A randomised controlled trial of clinical outreach education to rationalise antibiotic prescribing for acute dental pain in the primary care setting.

British dental journal·2006
Same author

Selecting specialist registrars by station interview.

Clinical medicine (London, England)·2006
Same author

Variability of antiepileptic medication taking behaviour in sudden unexplained death in epilepsy: hair analysis at autopsy.

Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry·2006
Same author

Differences in risk of mortality under 1 year of age between rural and urban areas: an ecological study.

Public health·2005
Same author

Are abused babies protected from further abuse?

Archives of disease in childhood·2004
Same journal

Optimal Weighted Tests for Replication Studies and the 'Two-Trials Rule' With Multiple Hypotheses.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Identifiable Copula-Double-Cox Models: A Fully Parametric Framework for Dependent Right-Censored Survival Data.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Moving From Individualized Risk-Based Prevention to Benefit-Based Prevention: Estimating Individualized Life-Years Gained From Prevention Services as a Basis for Eligibility.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

A Mixture of Distributed Lag Non-Linear Models to Account for Spatially Heterogeneous Exposure-Lag-Response Associations.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Practical Considerations for Gaussian Process Modeling for Causal Inference in Quasi-Experimental Studies With Panel Data.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Covariate Adjustment for Wilcoxon Two Sample Statistic and Test.

Statistics in medicine·2026
See all related articles

This study highlights limitations in ordinary regression for assessing relative bias in method comparison studies. A more robust maximum likelihood technique is proposed and evaluated through simulation, offering improved accuracy for bias assessment.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Clinical Diagnostics

Background:

  • Method comparison studies are crucial for evaluating analytical methods.
  • Assessing relative bias is a key component of these studies.
  • Ordinary regression is commonly used but may have limitations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify inadequacies of ordinary regression for relative bias assessment.
  • To propose a more generally applicable maximum likelihood technique.
  • To compare the properties of different estimation methods.

Main Methods:

  • Highlighting potential inadequacies of ordinary regression.
  • Proposing a maximum likelihood estimation technique.
  • Conducting a simulation study with varying within-assay precision profiles.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Ordinary regression may provide inadequate assessment of relative bias.
  • The proposed maximum likelihood technique demonstrates favorable properties.
  • Simulation results indicate the performance of different estimation methods under various precision profiles.

Conclusions:

  • The maximum likelihood technique offers a more reliable approach for relative bias assessment.
  • Careful consideration of analytical method precision is necessary.
  • This work provides a more robust statistical framework for method comparison.