Handling nonnormality and variance heterogeneity for quantitative sublethal toxicity tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advantages of using regression-based techniques to derive endpoints from environmental toxicity data are clear, and slowly, this superior analytical technique is gaining acceptance. As use of regression-based analysis becomes more widespread, some of the associated nuances and potential problems come into sharper focus. Looking at data sets that cover a broad spectrum of standard test species, we noticed that some model fits to data failed to meet two key assumptions-variance homogeneity and normality-that are necessary for correct statistical analysis via regression-based techniques. Failure to meet these assumptions often is caused by reduced variance at the concentrations showing severe adverse effects. Although commonly used with linear regression analysis, transformation of the response variable only is not appropriate when fitting data using nonlinear regression techniques. Through analysis of sample data sets, including Lemna minor, Eisenia andrei (terrestrial earthworm), and algae, we show that both the so-called Box-Cox transformation and use of the Poisson distribution can help to correct variance heterogeneity and nonnormality and so allow nonlinear regression analysis to be implemented. Both the Box-Cox transformation and the Poisson distribution can be readily implemented into existing protocols for statistical analysis. By correcting for nonnormality and variance heterogeneity, these two statistical tools can be used to encourage the transition to regression-based analysis and the depreciation of less-desirable and less-flexible analytical techniques, such as linear interpolation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".