A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evaluation of the use of bias factors with water monitoring data. | LitMetric

Evaluation of the use of bias factors with water monitoring data.

Environ Toxicol Chem

Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.

Published: July 2018

AI Article Synopsis

  • Many aquatic exposure assessments struggle with data gaps, particularly missing extreme concentrations when sampling is less frequent than daily.
  • A bias factor adjustment method has been suggested to improve estimates by increasing values to ensure the true concentrations are surpassed 95% of the time.
  • The evaluation of this method using a dataset from the Atrazine Ecological Monitoring Program reveals that bias factors are ineffective for accurate point estimation and interval coverage, leading to poor decision-making outcomes with high false-positive rates.

Article Abstract

Aquatic exposure assessments using surface water quality monitoring data are often challenged by missing extreme concentrations if sampling frequency is less than daily. A bias factor method has been previously proposed to address this concern for peak concentrations, where a bias factor is a multiplicative quantity to upwardly adjust estimates so that the true value is exceeded 95% of the time. In other words, bias factors are statistically protective adjustments. We evaluate this method using a research data set of 69 near-daily sampled site-years from the Atrazine Ecological Monitoring Program, dividing the data set into 23 reference and 46 validation site-years. Bias factors calculated from the reference data set are used to evaluate the method using the validation set for 1) point estimation, 2) interval estimation, and 3) decision-making. Sampling designs are every 7, 14, 28, and 90 d; and target quantities of assessment interest are the 90th and 95th percentiles and maximum m-day rolling averages (m = 1, 7, 21, 60, 90). We find that bias factors are poor point estimators in comparison with alternative methods. For interval estimation, average coverage is less than nominal, with coverage at individual site-years sometimes very low. Positive correlation of bias factors and target quantities, where present, adversely affects method performance. For decision rules or screening, the method typically shows very low false-negative rates but at the cost of extremely high false-positive rates. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:1864-1876. © 2018 SETAC.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.4154DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bias factors
20
data set
12
monitoring data
8
bias factor
8
evaluate method
8
interval estimation
8
target quantities
8
bias
6
factors
5
data
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!