...
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Science & Technology >Evaluation of Statistical Treatments of Left-Censored Environmental Data Using Coincident Uncensored Data Sets. Ⅱ. Group Comparisons
【24h】

Evaluation of Statistical Treatments of Left-Censored Environmental Data Using Coincident Uncensored Data Sets. Ⅱ. Group Comparisons

机译:使用符合条件的未经审查的数据集评估左删减环境数据的统计处理。 Ⅱ。组比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The main classes of statistical treatments that have been used to determine if two groups of censored environmental data arise from the same distribution are substitution methods, maximum likelihood (MLE) techniques, and nonparametric methods. These treatments along with using all instrument-generated data (IN), even those less than the detection limit, were evaluated by examining 550 data sets in which the true values of the censored data were known, and therefore "true" probabilities could be calculated and used as a yardstick for comparison. It was found that technique "quality" was strongly dependent on the degree of censoring present in the groups. For low degrees of censoring (<25% in each group), the Generalized Wilcoxon (GW) technique and substitution of √2/2 times the detection limit gave overall the best results. For moderate degrees of censoring, MLE worked best, but only if the distribution could be estimated to be normal or log-normal prior to its application; otherwise, GW was a suitable alternative. For higher degrees of censoring (each group >40% censoring), no technique provided reliable estimates of the true probability. Group size did not appear to influence the quality of the result, and no technique appeared to become better or worse than other techniques relative to group size. Finally, IN appeared to do very well relative to the other techniques regardless of censoring or group size.
机译:用于确定两组受审查的环境数据是否来自同一分布的统计处理的主要类别是替代方法,最大似然(MLE)技术和非参数方法。通过检查550个数据集(评估了被检查数据的真实值)知道了这些处理方法,以及使用了所有仪器生成的数据(IN),甚至包括那些少于检测极限的数据,都可以评估出“真实”概率并用作比较的准绳。发现技术“质量”在很大程度上取决于小组中存在的审查程度。对于低度检查(每组<25%),广义Wilcoxon(GW)技术和√2/ 2倍检测限的替换给出了总体上最好的结果。对于中等程度的审查,MLE效果最好,但前提是在应用之前可以估计分布为正态或对数正态;否则,GW是一个合适的选择。对于更高程度的审查(每组> 40%审查),没有一种技术可以提供真实概率的可靠估计。小组规模似乎并未影响结果的质量,相对于小组规模,没有任何一种技术比其他技术更好或更差。最后,相对于其他技术,IN似乎做得很好,而不管检查或小组人数如何。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental Science & Technology》 |2015年第22期|13439-13446|共8页
  • 作者

    Ronald C. Antweiler;

  • 作者单位

    U.S. Geological Survey, 3215 Marine Street, Boulder, Colorado 80309, United States;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号