Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10643761

Commentary: model building, quantitative testing, and model comparison.

E B Klerman·M E Jewett
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The final goal is to create mathematical models that are based on our current knowledge of the underlying physiology and that explain all of the experimental data available. To do this, we suggest a consideration of several potential mathematical structures in the formulation of models and the formal comparison of these various structures with other models in the literature. However, when making these comparisons, one must pay careful attention to the systems being modeled and the data sets chosen to represent those systems.

Explore related subjects

Data Interpretation, StatisticalModels, BiologicalModels, TheoreticalNASA Discipline Regulatory PhysiologyNon-NASA CenterCommentJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E B Klerman, M E Jewett. 1999. Commentary: model building, quantitative testing, and model comparison.. https://doi.org/10.1177/074873099129000993

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Analysis of ulcer data using hierarchical generalized linear models.

In multi-centre clinical trials, heterogeneities in individual hospital treatment effects can be modelled as random effects. Estimates of the individual hospital treatment effects and estimate of the mean treatment effect, allowing for the presence of overall hospital differences, are required, together with some measure of their uncertainty. Systematic inferences from the hierarchical-likelihood are now possible, using hierarchical generalized linear models. We show how to construct profile likelihoods for the treatment effects of individual hospitals.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMed2002

Statistical power and measurement allocation in ergonomic intervention studies assessing upper trapezius EMG amplitude. A case study of assembly work.

The present study aimed at exploring the statistical power of ergonomic intervention studies using electromyography (EMG) from the upper trapezius muscle. Data from a previous study of cyclic assembly work were reanalyzed with respect to exposure variability between subjects, between days, and within days. On basis of this information, the precision and power of different data collection strategies were explored. A sampling strategy comprising four registrations of about two min each (i.e. two work cycles) for one day per subject resulted in coefficients of variation between subjects on the 10-, 50-, and 90-APDF-percentiles of 0.44, 0.31, and 0.29, respectively. The corresponding necessary numbers of subjects in a study aiming at detecting a 20% exposure difference between two independent groups of equal size were 154, 78, and 68, respectively (p< or = 0.05, power 0.80). Multiple measurement days per subject would improve power, but only to a marginal extent beyond 4 days of recording. Increasing the number of recordings per day would have minor effects. Bootstrap resampling of the data set revealed that estimates of variability and power were associated with considerable uncertainty. The present results in combination with an overview of other occupational studies showed that common-size investigations using trapezius EMG percentiles are at great risk of suffering from insufficient statistical power, even if the expected intervention effect is substantial. The paper suggests a procedure of how to retrieve and use exposure variability information as an aid when studies are planned, and how to allocate measurements efficiently.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗