Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10443535

Validating and comparing predictive models.

J Baranyi·C Pin·T Ross
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The bias and accuracy factors introduced by Ross [Ross, T., 1996. Indices for performance evaluation of predictive models in food microbiology. J. Appl Bacteriol. 81, 501-508] for the evaluation of the performance of models in 'predictive food microbiology' are refined by basing the calculation of those measures on the mean square differences between predictions and observations. The use of the indices is extended by presenting formulae and methods which enable evaluation of the difference between alternative models for growth of an organism of interest over a domain of environmental factors. This is done by calculating the integral mean of the square differences between the models under investigation over the domain of the environmental variables common to those models, or a sub-region of it. The use of the techniques is exemplified by evaluating the difference between four published models for the growth rate of psychrotrophic pseudomonads.

Explore related subjects

BiasFood MicrobiologyModels, BiologicalReproducibility of ResultsComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Baranyi, C Pin, T Ross. 1999-06-01. Validating and comparing predictive models.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00035-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Gigerenzer's normative critique of Kahneman and Tversky.

Gigerenzer has argued that it may be inappropriate to characterize some of the biases identified by Kahneman and Tversky as "errors" or "fallacies," for three reasons: (a) according to frequentists, no norms are appropriate for single-case judgments because single-case probabilities are meaningless; (b) even if single-case probabilities make sense, they need not be governed by statistical norms because such norms are "content-blind" and can conflict with conversational norms; (c) conflicting statistical norms exist. I try to clear up certain misunderstandings that may have hindered progress in this debate. Gigerenzer's main point turns out to be far less extreme than the position of "normative agnosticism" attributed to him by Kahneman and Tversky: Gigerenzer is not denying that norms appropriate for single-case judgments exist, but is rather complaining that the existence and the nature of such norms have been dogmatically assumed by the heuristics and biases literature. In response to this complaint I argue that single-case probabilities (a) make sense and (b) are governed by probabilistic norms, and that (c) the existence of conflicting statistical norms may be less widespread and less damaging than Gigerenzer thinks.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored randomised clinical trials often result in biased findings, either due to selective reporting of studies with non-equivalent arms or publication of low-quality papers, wherein unfavourable results are incompletely described. A randomised trial should be conducted only if there is substantial uncertainty about the relative value of one treatment versus another. Studies in which intervention and control are thought to be non-equivalent violates the uncertainty principle. METHODS: We examined the quality of 136 published randomised trials that focused on one disease category (multiple myeloma) and adherence to the uncertainty principle. To evaluate whether the uncertainty principle was upheld, we compared the number of studies favouring experimental treatments over standard ones. We analysed data according to the source of funding. FINDINGS: Trials funded solely or in part by 35 profit-making organisations had a trend toward higher quality scores (mean 2.94 [SD 1.3]; median 3) than randomised trials supported by 95 governmental or other non-profit organisations (2.4 [0.8]; 2; p=0.06). Overall, the uncertainty principle was upheld, with 44% of randomised trials favouring standard treatments and 56% innovative treatments (p=0.17); mean and median preference evaluation scores were 3.7 (1.0) and 4. However, when the analysis was done according to the source of funding, studies funded by non-profit organisations maintained equipoise favouring new therapies over standard ones (47% vs 53%; p=0.608) to a greater extent than randomised trials supported solely or in part by profit-making organisations (74% vs 26%; p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: The reported bias in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry may be a consequence of violations of the uncertainty principle. Sponsors of clinical trials should be encouraged to report all results and to choose appropriate comparative controls.

Bias↗