Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 1308507

Similar data different interpretations.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V Kulkarni. 1992. Similar data different interpretations.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1308507/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Tumor size on computed tomography scans: is one measurement enough?

BACKGROUND: Bidimensional tumor measurements are used routinely as surrogates for tumor volume. The purpose this study was to determine whether there is any added benefit in bidimensional or tridimensional measurements over a unidimensional measurement. METHODS: Sixty-nine colorectal hepatic metastases on 19 computed tomography scans (1-8 lesions per scan) from 9 patients were analyzed. Five patients contributed 2-4 scans each (mean, 3 scans). The standard volume of these lesions was determined by the "summation of areas" technique. The maximum axial dimension, the product of the greatest axial dimensions, and several volume estimates (based on the volumes of a sphere, an ellipsoid, and a cube) each were correlated with the standard volume. RESULTS: The maximum axial dimension and the product of the greatest axial dimensions correlated equally with tumor volume (correlation coefficient = 0.93). Surrogate measures based on the equations for a sphere and an ellipsoid underestimated tumor volume, whereas the equation for a cube overestimated volume. CONCLUSIONS: When reporting tumor size, there is no significant added benefit in reporting bidimensional or tridimensional measurements over the maximum axial dimension.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗

A comparison of non-linear non-parametric models for epilepsy data.

EEG spike and wave (SW) activity has been described through a non-parametric stochastic model estimated by the Nadaraya-Watson (NW) method. In this paper the performance of the NW, the local linear polynomial regression and support vector machines (SVM) methods were compared. The noise-free realizations obtained by the NW and SVM methods reproduced SW better than as reported in previous works. The tuning parameters had to be estimated manually. Adding dynamical noise, only the NW method was capable of generating SW similar to training data. The standard deviation of the dynamical noise was estimated by means of the correlation dimension.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗