Count data in biology—Data transformation or model reformation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Statistical analyses are an integral component of scientific research, and for decades, biologists have applied transformations to data to meet the normal error assumptions for F and t tests. Over the years, there has been a movement from data transformation toward model reformation—the use of non‐normal error structures within the framework of the generalized linear model (GLM). The principal advantage of model reformation is that parameters are estimated on the original, rather than the transformed scale. However, data transformation has been shown to give better control over type I error, for simulated data with known error structures. We conducted a literature review of statistical textbooks directed toward biologists and of journal articles published in the primary literature to determine temporal trends in both the text recommendations and the practice in the refereed literature over the past 35 years. In this review, a trend of increasing use of reformation in the primary literature was evident, moving from no use of reformation before 1996 to >50% of the articles reviewed applying GLM after 2006. However, no such trend was observed in the recommendations in statistical textbooks. We then undertook 12 analyses based on published datasets in which we compared the type I error estimates, residual plot diagnostics, and coefficients yielded by analyses using square root transformations, log transformations, and the GLM. All analyses yielded acceptable residual versus fit plots and had similar p ‐values within each analysis, but as expected, the coefficient estimates differed substantially. Furthermore, no consensus could be found in the literature regarding a procedure to back‐transform the coefficient estimates obtained from linear models performed on transformed datasets. This lack of consistency among coefficient estimates constitutes a major argument for model reformation over data transformation in biology.
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 | 0.155 | 0.512 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".