Author
Listed:
- Frank Klawonn
(Institute for Information Engineering, Ostfalia University, 38302 Braunschweig, Germany
Biostatistics Group, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany)
- Neele Riekeberg
(Institute for Information Engineering, Ostfalia University, 38302 Braunschweig, Germany)
- Georg Hoffmann
(Medizinischer Fachverlag Trillium GmbH, 82284 Grafrath, Germany)
Abstract
Reference intervals play an important role in medicine, for instance, for the interpretation of blood test results. They are defined as the central 95% values of a healthy population and are often stratified by sex and age. In recent years, so-called indirect methods for the computation and validation of reference intervals have gained importance. Indirect methods use all values from a laboratory, including the pathological cases, and try to identify the healthy sub-population in the mixture of values. This is only possible under certain model assumptions, i.e., that the majority of the values represent non-pathological values and that the non-pathological values follow a normal distribution after a suitable transformation, commonly a Box–Cox transformation, rendering the parameter λ of the Box–Cox transformation as a nuisance parameter for the estimation of the reference interval. Although indirect methods put high effort on the estimation of λ , they come to very different estimates for λ , even though the estimated reference intervals are quite coherent. Our theoretical considerations and Monte-Carlo simulations show that overestimating λ can lead to intolerable deviations of the reference interval estimates, whereas λ = 0 produces usually acceptable estimates. For λ close to 1, its estimate has limited influence on the estimate for the reference interval, and with reasonable sample sizes, the uncertainty for the λ -estimate remains quite high.
Suggested Citation
Frank Klawonn & Neele Riekeberg & Georg Hoffmann, 2024.
"Importance and Uncertainty of λ -Estimation for Box–Cox Transformations to Compute and Verify Reference Intervals in Laboratory Medicine,"
Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, February.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:1:p:11-184:d:1336685
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:1:p:11-184:d:1336685. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.