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 vs. minimum chi-square.

N Mantel

    Biometrics
    |September 1, 1985
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Maximum likelihood estimates are more reliable than minimum chi-square estimates for quantal bioassay data, especially with small group sizes. Minimum chi-square methods can produce inconsistent results due to a bias in response probability estimates.

    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

    Genetic stability of a dengue vaccine based on chimeric yellow fever/dengue viruses.

    Vaccine·2011
    Same author

    Eradication of leukaemic cells (L1210) by methotrexate and methotrexate plus citrovorum factor.

    Nature·2010
    Same author

    Standardized quantitative RT-PCR assays for quantitation of yellow fever and chimeric yellow fever-dengue vaccines.

    Journal of virological methods·2008
    Same author

    Chemotherapy and surgery of spontaneous tumors of mice. 1966.

    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)·2004
    Same author

    The efficiency of the sets and the cuscore techniques under biased baseline rates.

    Statistics in medicine·1997
    Same author

    Motor neuron disease on Guam: geographic and familial occurrence, 1956-85.

    Acta neurologica Scandinavica·1996
    Same journal

    Fast penalized generalized estimating equations for large longitudinal functional datasets.

    Biometrics·2026
    Same journal

    Causally-interpretable random-effects meta-analysis.

    Biometrics·2026
    Same journal

    Statistical inference for mean function of partially observed functional time series.

    Biometrics·2026
    Same journal

    Subgroup identification via Interaction Tree and Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with application to Alzheimer's disease.

    Biometrics·2026
    Same journal

    Finite mixtures of linear quantile regressions with concomitant variables: a solution to endogeneity in longitudinal data modeling.

    Biometrics·2026
    Same journal

    Discussion on "INTACT: a method for integration of longitudinal physical activity data from multiple sources" by Jingru Zhang, Erjia Cui, Hongzhe Li, and Haochang Shou.

    Biometrics·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Biostatistics
    • Toxicology
    • Quantitative Biology

    Background:

    • Quantal bioassay analysis is crucial for determining dose-response relationships.
    • Minimum chi-square (MCS) and maximum likelihood (ML) are common estimation methods.
    • Small group sizes in bioassays can lead to estimation challenges.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the asymptotic behavior of minimum chi-square (MCS) and maximum likelihood (ML) estimates in quantal bioassay analysis.
    • To identify the causes of inconsistent estimates in MCS analysis with small group sizes.
    • To highlight the advantages of ML estimation in such scenarios.

    Main Methods:

    • Analysis of quantal bioassay data using logit and probit models.
    • Comparison of estimation properties under varying test-group sizes.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Investigation of bias in response probability estimation for MCS.

    • Main Results:

    • MCS estimates exhibit inconsistent behavior with small group sizes, regardless of the number of groups.
    • ML estimates maintain consistent behavior even with group sizes of unity.
    • Inconsistency in MCS arises from a bias toward 0.5 response probability, maximizing binomial variance and minimizing chi-square values.

    Conclusions:

    • Maximum likelihood estimation is preferred for quantal bioassay data, particularly when dealing with small test-group sizes.
    • Minimum chi-square methods should be used cautiously with small group sizes due to potential estimation inconsistencies.
    • Understanding the sources of bias in estimation methods is critical for accurate bioassay interpretation.