Literature DB >> 23124816

Standard error of inverse prediction for dose-response relationship: approximate and exact statistical inference.

Eugene Demidenko1, Benjamin B Williams, Ann Barry Flood, Harold M Swartz.   

Abstract

This paper develops a new metric, the standard error of inverse prediction (SEIP), for a dose-response relationship (calibration curve) when dose is estimated from response via inverse regression. SEIP can be viewed as a generalization of the coefficient of variation to regression problem when x is predicted using y-value. We employ nonstandard statistical methods to treat the inverse prediction, which has an infinite mean and variance due to the presence of a normally distributed variable in the denominator. We develop confidence intervals and hypothesis testing for SEIP on the basis of the normal approximation and using the exact statistical inference based on the noncentral t-distribution. We derive the power functions for both approaches and test them via statistical simulations. The theoretical SEIP, as the ratio of the regression standard error to the slope, is viewed as reciprocal of the signal-to-noise ratio, a popular measure of signal processing. The SEIP, as a figure of merit for inverse prediction, can be used for comparison of calibration curves with different dependent variables and slopes. We illustrate our theory with electron paramagnetic resonance tooth dosimetry for a rapid estimation of the radiation dose received in the event of nuclear terrorism.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23124816      PMCID: PMC3689210          DOI: 10.1002/sim.5668

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

1.  Inverse vs. classical calibration for small data sets.

Authors:  J Tellinghuisen
Journal:  Fresenius J Anal Chem       Date:  2000-11

2.  LONG-LIVED ELECTRON SPIN RESONANCES IN RATS IRRADIATED AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.

Authors:  H M SWARTZ
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1965-04       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 3.  EPR dosimetry with tooth enamel: A review.

Authors:  Paola Fattibene; Freddy Callens
Journal:  Appl Radiat Isot       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 1.513

4.  In Vivo EPR For Dosimetry.

Authors:  Harold M Swartz; Greg Burke; M Coey; Eugene Demidenko; Ruhong Dong; Oleg Grinberg; James Hilton; Akinori Iwasaki; Piotr Lesniewski; Maciej Kmiec; Kai-Ming Lo; R Javier Nicolalde; Andres Ruuge; Yasuko Sakata; Artur Sucheta; Tadeusz Walczak; Benjamin B Williams; Chad Mitchell; Alex Romanyukha; David A Schauer
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.898

5.  Radiation dose reconstruction from L-band in vivo EPR spectroscopy of intact teeth: Comparison of methods.

Authors:  E Demidenko; B B Williams; A Sucheta; R Dong; H M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.898

6.  A Framework for Comparative Evaluation of Dosimetric Methods to Triage a Large Population Following a Radiological Event.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Roberto J Nicolalde; Eugene Demidenko; Benjamin B Williams; Alla Shapiro; Albert L Wiley; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 1.898

7.  Physically-based biodosimetry using in vivo EPR of teeth in patients undergoing total body irradiation.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ruhong Dong; Roberto J Nicolalde; Thomas P Matthews; David J Gladstone; Eugene Demidenko; Bassem I Zaki; Ildar K Salikhov; Piotr N Lesniewski; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 2.694

8.  A critical assessment of biodosimetry methods for large-scale incidents.

Authors:  Harold M Swartz; Ann Barry Flood; Robert M Gougelet; Michael E Rea; Roberto J Nicolalde; Benjamin B Williams
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

  8 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Advances in in vivo EPR Tooth BIOdosimetry: Meeting the targets for initial triage following a large-scale radiation event.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Benjamin B Williams; Wilson Schreiber; Gaixin Du; Victoria A Wood; Maciej M Kmiec; Sergey V Petryakov; Eugene Demidenko; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  In vivo EPR tooth dosimetry for triage after a radiation event involving large populations.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ann Barry Flood; Ildar Salikhov; Kyo Kobayashi; Ruhong Dong; Kevin Rychert; Gaixin Du; Wilson Schreiber; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  Statistical Uncertainty in Paleoclimate Proxy Reconstructions.

Authors:  H L O McClelland; I Halevy; D A Wolf-Gladrow; D Evans; A S Bradley
Journal:  Geophys Res Lett       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 5.576

4.  Abductive statistical methods improve the results of calibration curve bioassays: An example of determining zinc bioavailability in broiler chickens.

Authors:  Gene M Pesti; Lynne Billard; Shu-Biao Wu; Robert A Swick; Thi Thanh Hoai Nguyen; Natalie Morgan
Journal:  Anim Nutr       Date:  2022-04-28

5.  A new inverse regression model applied to radiation biodosimetry.

Authors:  Manuel Higueras; Pedro Puig; Elizabeth A Ainsbury; Kai Rothkamm
Journal:  Proc Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2015-02-08       Impact factor: 2.704

6.  Point and Interval Estimators of the Target Dose in Clinical Dose-Finding Studies with Active Control.

Authors:  H-J Helms; N Benda; T Friede
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 1.051

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.