Transformed-response variances

Table I. Comparison of Transformed Response Variances for Several Powers of Transformation. Fenvalerate Data on the Electron Capture Detector.

Table II. Transformed Response Variances Converging to a Constant...

Table III. Transformed Response Variances nearly not Converging...

The various Datasets A-F were all of fenvalerate. We chose to transform the response values of these sets to the same power as required for the fenvalerate data set since we wished to use these data sets as examples of "unknown" data sets or as examples of poor quality standard sets. If the compound has an inherent analysis quality relating to the response variance, the quality of the poor sets is reflected in differences in the error bands. The acceptable ranges for the Datasets A-F, as shown in Table V, did include the 0.13 power eventually used in all cases where an acceptable H value was found. 

Differences in calibration graph results were found in amount and amount interval estimations in the use of three common data sets of the chemical pesticide fenvalerate by the individual methods of three researchers. Differences in the methods included constant variance treatments by weighting or transforming response values. Linear single and multiple curve functions and cubic spline functions were used to fit the data. Amount differences were found between three hand plotted methods and between the hand plotted and three different statistical regression line methods. Significant differences in the calculated amount interval estimates were found with the cubic spline function due to its limited scope of inference. Smaller differences were produced by the use of local versus global variance estimators and a simple Bonferroni adjustment. 

At any rate the practitioner must follow a two-step process in setting up a calibration graph 1. Stabilize the response variance across the range needed and 2. choose an appropriate calculation function model. The response data is stabilized currently in two ways, either by weighting on a level-by-level basis or by applying some transformation function in the same manner to all the response values. The model chosen must approximate the data. It can be that a simple linear (as shown by a statistical test) function can serve this purpose adequately. The use of Mitchell s multiple linear function has been successfully... 

If there is no theory available to determine a suitable transformation, statistical methods can be used to determine a transformation. The Box-Cox transformation [18] is a common approach to determine if a transformation of a response is needed. With the Box-Cox transformation the response, y, is taken to different powers A, (e.g. -2transformed response can be fitted by a predefined (simple) model. Both an optimal value and a confidence interval for A can be estimated. The transformation which results in the lowest value for the residual variance is the optimal value and should give a combination of a homoscedastical error structure and be suitable for the predefined model. When A=0 the trans-... 

If the upper and lower bonds diverge and the pattern of the residuals in the plot is funnel-like, (Fig. 6.11a), it is an indication that the error is different in different parts of the experimental domain. In such cases, the assumption of a constant error variance is violated. To overcome this difficulty and to obtain a fairly constant error distribution, the metric of the response variable should be changed through some transformation, and the modell refitted to the transformed response. How this can be done is discussed in Chapter 12. 

For linear systems and linear performance functions, the suboptimal control force can be obtained as a function of impulse response functions reversed in time. Also from Eq. 15, it can be noted that the evaluation of the correction process, also known as the Radon-Nikodym derivative, is independent of the mathematical model for the structure under study. Thus, an acceptable choice for the control force can be made solely based on experimental techniques, and the estimator for the reliability can be deduced without taking further recourse to mathematical model for the structure tmder study. This permits the application of the Girsanov transformation-based variance reduction technique in the experimental study of time variant rehability of complex structural systems which are difficult to model mathematically (Sundar and Manohar 2014a). 

Let u be a vector valued stochastic variable with dimension D x 1 and with covariance matrix Ru of size D x D. The key idea is to linearly transform all observation vectors, u , to new variables, z = W Uy, and then solve the optimization problem (1) where we replace u, by z . We choose the transformation so that the covariance matrix of z is diagonal and (more importantly) none if its eigenvalues are too close to zero. (Loosely speaking, the eigenvalues close to zero are those that are responsible for the large variance of the OLS-solution). In order to liiid the desired transformation, a singular value decomposition of /f is performed yielding... 

Linear regression assumes that variance across doses is constant and that the dose response is linear. If the variance is not approximately constant, then a transformation may be applied or a weighted analysis may be carried out. If the dose scale tends to a plateau, then the dose scale may be transformed. If counts decline markedly at high doses, then linear regression is inappropriate. 

We will describe an accurate statistical method that includes a full assessment of error in the overall calibration process, that is, (I) the confidence interval around the graph, (2) an error band around unknown responses, and finally (3) the estimated amount intervals. To properly use the method, data will be adjusted by using general data transformations to achieve constant variance and linearity. It utilizes a six-step process to calculate amounts or concentration values of unknown samples and their estimated intervals from chromatographic response values using calibration graphs that are constructed by regression. 

Figure 1. Plots showing the Calibration Process. A. Response transformation to constant variance Examples showing a. too little, b. appropriate, and c. too much transformation power. B. Amount Transformation in conforming to a (linear) model. C. Construction of p. confidence bands about the regressed line, q. response error bounds and intersection of these to determine r. the estimated amount interval.

Mitchell, and Hills ( ) They use weighted least squares to resolve the non-constant variance of the response signal for different concentrations, whereas we transform the response to achieve constant variance. 

Response Transformation. Step 1. We found that the calibration graph response data obtained from gas chromatography seldom have constant variance along the length of the graph. The data in Tables I-III clearly show that the larger the response value the larger the variance of the response at that level. Fenvalerate in Table I, chlordecone (kepone) in Table II and chlorothalonil in Table III have the information for untreated data (at a... 

Another solution to the problem of non-constant variance is to transform the response data. A common way of transforming data has been by taking the logarithms of both the response and amount variables ( 8-10 ). However, for all the data we looked at, the log transformation has been too strong. See Tables I and V. 

Constant Variances. Response values from the electron capture chromatographic analysis of the insecticide fenvalerate, were transformed by the process described above. The six response values at each of six different amount levels were transformed by a series of powers, and the variances calculated at each level (Table I). For a transformation power of 0.5 the value of the variances increased from 0.001 to 0.338 as the response increased. When the logarithm of the response was used, the value of the variances decreased from 0.00085 to 0.00008 as the response increased. Raising the responses to the 0.15 power gave calculated variances that remained roughly constant across the range of amounts. 

From the authors experience not all real data sets can be transformed to constant variance using power transformations. Instrumentation imperfections in our laboratory resulted in data that had variable variances despite our attempts at transformation. The transformed chlorothalonil data set, as shown in Table III illustrates a set where the transformations attempted nearly failed to give constant variance across the response range in this case the Hartley criterion was barely satisfied. The replications at the 0.1 and 20. ng levels had excessively high variance over the other levels. An example where constant variance was easily achieved utilized data of the insecticide chlordecone (kepone) also on the electron capture detector. Table II shows that using a transformation power of 0.3 resulted in nearly constant variance. 

Wegscheider fitted a cubic spline function to the logarithmically transformed sample means of each level. This method obviates any lack of fit, and so it is not possible to calculate a confidence band about the fitted curve. Instead, the variance in response was estimated from the deviations of the calibration standards from their means at an Ot of 0.05. The intersection of this response interval with the fitted calibration line determined the estimated amount interval. 

The univariate response data on all standard biomarker data were analysed, ineluding analysis of variance for unbalaneed design, using Genstat v7.1 statistical software (VSN, 2003). In addition, a-priori pairwise t-tests were performed with the mean reference value, using the pooled variance estimate from the ANOVA. The real value data were not transformed. The average values for the KMBA and WOP biomarkers were not based on different flounder eaptured at the sites, but on replicate measurements of pooled liver tissue. The nominal response data of the immunohistochemical biomarkers (elassification of effects) were analysed by means of a Monte... 

When DJuL is found to be large and the tracer response curve is skewed, as in Fig. 2.23b, but without a significant delay, a continuous stirred-tanks in series model (Section 2.3.2), may be found to be more appropriate. The tracer response curve will then resemble one of those in Fig. 2.8 or Fig. 2.9. The variance a2 of such a curve with a mean of tc is related to the number of tanks / by the expression a2 = t2/i (which can be shown for example by the Laplace transform method 7 from the equations set out in Section 2.3.2). Calculations of the mean and variance of an experimental curve can be used to determine either a dispersion coefficient Dl or a number of tanks i. Thus each of the models can be described as a one parameter model , the parameter being DL in the one case and i in the other. It should be noted that the value of i calculated in this way will not necessarily be integral but this can be accommodated in the more mathematically general form of the tanks-in-series model as described by Nauman and Buffham 7 . 

Note that in preliminary calculations the sum of replicated design points-trials is taken as the response, and thus the number of replicated design points n is introduced Eq. (2.70). As there exists replication of trials, it is evident that the error sum of squares is calculated in accord with analysis of variance methodology. To enable comparison of such variance determination with classical analysis of variance, it is necessary to transform Table 2.107 into Table 2.108. 

We view the real or the simulated system as a black box that transforms inputs into outputs. Experiments with such a system are often analyzed through an approximating regression or analysis of variance model. Other types of approximating models include those for Kriging, neural nets, radial basis functions, and various types of splines. We call such approximating models metamodels other names include auxiliary models, emulators, and response surfaces. The simulation itself is a model of some real-world system. The goal is to build a parsimonious metamodel that describes the input-output relationship in simple terms. 

Our choice of model differs from that of Tschernitz et al. (1946), who preferred Model d over Model h on the basis of a better fit. The difference lies in the weightings used. Tschernitz et al. transformed each model to get a linear least-squares problem (a necessity for their desk calculations) but inappropriately used weights of 1 for the transformed observations and response functions. For comparison, we refitted the data with the same linearized models, but with weights Wu derived for each model and each event according to the variance expression in Eq. (6.8-1) for In 7. The residual sums of squares thus found were comparable to those in Table 6.5. confirming the superiority of Model h among those tested. 

Furthermore, the recognition of variations across the different scales of spatial and temporal dimensions would enable the identification of shifting therapeutic targets to address both of the individual and the time variances in personalized medicine (see Fig. 1). Accurate and robust biomarkers can also be useful for the stratification of diseases and classification of patient subgroups for more effective prevention and therapy. The prediction of drug responses would in turn help avoid adverse events for better clinical outcomes. In addition, the construction of dynamic disease predictive networks derived from the analyses of omics data would allow for the transition from reactive treatments to holistic and proactive care. With the transformation from disease-centered to human-based care, the systems and dynamical models would provide patient-centric information to enhance the participation of individuals, the goal of participatory medicine. 

Indications of this can be obtained by plotting tbe residuals in different ways, to make sure that th do not show any abnormal pattern. Sometimes it is found that the plot of the residuals against the predicted response has a funnel-like pattern, which shows that the size of tbe residuals are dependent on the magnitude of tbe responses. A situation when this is often encountered is when integrated chromatographic peaks are used to determine concentrations in tbe sample. When such patterns are observed it is a clear indication that the assumption of a constant variance is violated. This obstacle can sometimes be removed by a mathematical transformation of tbe response variable y... 

The constant variance assumption can be relaxed via either a rescaling of the response or a weighted fit (4). Similarly, if an appropriate model is used, the normality assumption may be relaxed (4). For example, with a dichotomous response, a logit-log model may be appropriate (5). Other response patterns (e.g., Poisson) may be fit via a generalized linear model (6). For quantitative responses, it is often most practical to find a rescaling or transformation of the response scale to achieve nearly constant variance and nearly normal responses. Finally, if samples are grouped, then blocks or other experiment design structures must be included in the model (7-12). 

---