An investigation of the impact of left-censored soil contamination data on the uncertainty of descriptive statistical parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left-censored concentration data are frequently encountered because measuring instruments cannot detect concentrations below the instrument detection limit. For statistical analysis of left-censored data, the environmental literature mainly refers to the following methods: maximum likelihood estimator, regression on order statistics using log-normal and gamma assumption (rROS and GROS, respectively), and Kaplan-Meier. A number of simulation experiments examined the performance of these methods in terms of bias and/or mean square error. However, no matter which method is adopted, some uncertainty is introduced into outcomes because all that is known about a left-censored observation is that the concentration falls between 0 and the detection limit. The data used in the present study come from analysis of soil samples collected for a site characterization in Montreal, Canada. Employing nonparametric bootstrap, the authors quantify the uncertainty and bias in the mean and standard deviation estimates obtained by the maximum likelihood estimation (under log-normal, Weibull, and gamma distributions), rROS, GROS, and Kaplan-Meier methods. First, the authors demonstrate that the highest uncertainty is associated with the maximum likelihood estimator under log-normality and Weibull assumptions, whereas a gamma assumption leads to estimates with less uncertainty. Second, the authors show that although an increase in sample size improves the uncertainty, it reduces the bias only in the rROS, GROS, and Kaplan-Meier methods. Finally, comparing percentage uncertainty in the mean of contaminant data, the authors illustrate that adopting an inappropriate estimator results in large uncertainties. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:2623-2631. © 2016 SETAC.
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 | 0.031 | 0.212 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".