Describing water treatment process performance: Why average log-reduction can be a misleading statistic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree to which a technology used for drinking water treatment physically removes or inactivates pathogenic microorganisms is commonly expressed as a log-reduction (or log-removal) and is of central importance to the provision of microbiologically safe drinking water. Many evaluations of water treatment process performance generate or compile multiple values of microorganism log-reduction, and it is common to report the average of these log-reduction values as a summary statistic. This work provides a cautionary note against misinterpretation and misuse of averaged log-reduction values by mathematically proving that the average of a set of log-reduction values characteristically overstates the average performance of which the set of log-reduction values is believed to be representative. This has two important consequences for drinking water and food safety as well as other applications of log-reduction: 1) a technology with higher average log-reduction does not necessarily have higher average performance, and 2) risk analyses using averaged log-reduction values as point estimates of treatment efficiency will underestimate average risk-sometimes by well over an order of magnitude. When analyzing a set of log-reduction values, a summary statistic called the effective log-reduction (which averages reduction or passage rates and expresses this as a log-reduction) provides a better representation of average performance of a treatment technology.
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 | 0.058 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".