Toward improved analysis of concentration data: Embracing nondetects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various statistical tests on concentration data serve to support decision-making regarding characterization and monitoring of contaminated media, assessing exposure to a chemical, and quantifying the associated risks. However, the routine statistical protocols cannot be directly applied because of challenges arising from nondetects or left-censored observations, which are concentration measurements below the detection limit of measuring instruments. Despite the existence of techniques based on survival analysis that can adjust for nondetects, these are seldom taken into account properly. A comprehensive review of the literature showed that managing policies regarding analysis of censored data do not always agree and that guidance from regulatory agencies may be outdated. Therefore, researchers and practitioners commonly resort to the most convenient way of tackling the censored data problem by substituting nondetects with arbitrary constants prior to data analysis, although this is generally regarded as a bias-prone approach. Hoping to improve the interpretation of concentration data, the present article aims to familiarize researchers in different disciplines with the significance of left-censored observations and provides theoretical and computational recommendations (under both frequentist and Bayesian frameworks) for adequate analysis of censored data. In particular, the present article synthesizes key findings from previous research with respect to 3 noteworthy aspects of inferential statistics: estimation of descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and regression analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:643-656. © 2017 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 | 0.035 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".