Variance between data

Correlational data mining can also (depending on the software in question) look for trends among quantitative data to find those that come together (called positive variance between data) or in opposite directions (called negative variance between data). The words association and variance between... 

The principle of multivariate analysis of variance and discriminant analysis (MVDA) consists in testing the differences between a priori classes (MANOVA) and their maximum separation by modeling (MDA). The variance between the classes will be maximized and the variance within the classes will be minimized by simultaneous consideration of all observed features. The classification of new objects into the a priori classes, i.e. the reclassification of the learning data set of the objects, takes place according to the values of discriminant functions. These discriminant functions are linear combinations of the optimum set of the original features for class separation. The mathematical fundamentals of the MVDA are explained in Section 5.6. 

The principal component plot of the objects allows a visual cluster analysis. The distances between data points in the projection, however, may differ considerably from the actual distance values. This will be the case when variances of the third and following principal components cannot be left out of consideration. A serious interpretation should include the application of at least another cluster analysis method (ref. 11,12). 

If however, detection was the objective, 5 ng/ml limit was practical in the tandem method. As with the other HPLC techniques, this method was compared to the reference HPLC-MS technique. Table V gives data obtained on plasma from a marijuana smoker using both methods. The only notable variance between the two methods occurred with the two hour sample which was received by our laboratory in a broken tube. 

For a discussion of the result of the micronucleus assay a comparison of the data from the treatment group vs. concurrent negative control data and historical control data, as well as a statistical analysis of the experimental data using trend analysis or pair-wise comparison (treatment group versus control) need to be considered. It is also recommended to check the variance between the animals and gender. However, for the final assessment, biological relevance of the results should be considered. 

The conclusion drawn from equation (8.56) is at odds with published data on polystyrene lattices and silver bromide, in which a volume proportionality is found [37,38]. However these distributions w ere narrow, and with narrow distributions the difference between volume and surface distributions is small. The conclusion is also at variance with data published on BCR 66 quartz powder, ranging in size from 0.3 to 3 pm. In this case, the median for the attenuation curve was 1.52 pm which reduced to 1.14 pm with extinction factor correction [39] and a correction of this magnitude could hide the effect. 

As discussed in Chapter 21, the variances of stochastic errors are equal for real and imaginary parts of the impedance. Thxis, another advantage of presenting real and imaginary parts of the impedance as a function of frequency is that comparison between data and levels of stochastic noise can be easily represented. 

The first requirement is to determine the appropriate value of p, the number of factors necessary to describe the original data adequately. If p cannot be specified then the partition of total variance between common and unique factors cannot be determined. For our simple example with the mass spectra data it appears obvious that p = l, i.e. there are two common factors which we... 

The multiple imputation standard error of the parameter estimate 0j is then the square root of Eq. (2.106). Examination of Eq. (2.106) shows that the multiple imputation standard error is a weighted sum of the within-and between-data set standard errors. As m increases to infinity the variance of the parameter estimate becomes the average of the parameter estimate variances. 

A quick test for IOV is to modify the data set treating each subject measured on each occasion as a separate and unique subject. The difference in residual variance between the original data set and the modified data set reflects the degree of IOV (Hossain et al., 1997). This works only if there is sufficient data collected on each occasion. For example, there may be only one observation during a series of occasions in which case IOV cannot be identified using this approach. When IOV is not included in a model, that variability is included in the residual variability term. Hence, residual variability is inflated when IOV is not included in the model. 

In practice, at first one may wish to try to obtain a separate estimate of the variance on each occasion, i.e., obtain estimates of coj, w2, etc. If the variance terms are approximately equal (in general if the ratio of the largest to smallest variance component is less than four, the variances are treated as equivalent) then one can assume that Wj = w2 =. .. (a , or that there is a common variance between occasions, and reestimate the model. If, however, there is a trend in the variances over time then one may wish to treat as a function of time. Alternatively, one may wish to examine whether IOV can be explained by any covariates in the data set. For most data sets, such complex IOV models cannot be supported by the data and these complications will not be explored any further. 

---