Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20365691›Full record

ArticlePhysical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics2010

Effect of extreme data loss on long-range correlated and anticorrelated signals quantified by detrended fluctuation analysis.

Qianli D Y Ma, Ronny P Bartsch, Pedro Bernaola-Galván, Mitsuru Yoneyama, Plamen Ch Ivanov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. TsallisEntropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Phase transitions in the first-passage time of scale-invariant correlated processes.Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Qianli D Y MaHarvard Medical School and Division of Sleep Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Ronny P Bartsch
Pedro Bernaola-Galván
Mitsuru Yoneyama
Plamen Ch Ivanov

Funding

Self Organized Criticality as a new paradigm of sleep regulationR01HL098437 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI IVANOV, PLAMEN CHRISTOV · 2011 to 2015
$2.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL098437
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) is an improved method of classical fluctuation analysis for nonstationary signals where embedded polynomial trends mask the intrinsic correlation properties of the fluctuations. To better identify the intrinsic correlation properties of real-world signals where a large amount of data is missing or removed due to artifacts, we investigate how extreme data loss affects the scaling behavior of long-range power-law correlated and anticorrelated signals. We introduce a segmentation approach to generate surrogate signals by randomly removing data segments from stationary signals with different types of long-range correlations. The surrogate signals we generate are characterized by four parameters: (i) the DFA scaling exponent alpha of the original correlated signal u(i) , (ii) the percentage p of the data removed from u(i) , (iii) the average length mu of the removed (or remaining) data segments, and (iv) the functional form P(l) of the distribution of the length l of the removed (or remaining) data segments. We find that the global scaling exponent of positively correlated signals remains practically unchanged even for extreme data loss of up to 90%. In contrast, the global scaling of anticorrelated signals changes to uncorrelated behavior even when a very small fraction of the data is lost. These observations are confirmed on two examples of real-world signals: human gait and commodity price fluctuations. We further systematically study the local scaling behavior of surrogate signals with missing data to reveal subtle deviations across scales. We find that for anticorrelated signals even 10% of data loss leads to significant monotonic deviations in the local scaling at large scales from the original anticorrelated to uncorrelated behavior. In contrast, positively correlated signals show no observable changes in the local scaling for up to 65% of data loss, while for larger percentage of data loss, the local scaling shows overestimated regions (with higher local exponent) at small scales, followed by underestimated regions (with lower local exponent) at large scales. Finally, we investigate how the scaling is affected by the average length, probability distribution, and percentage of the remaining data segments in comparison to the removed segments. We find that the average length mu_{r} of the remaining segments is the key parameter which determines the scales at which the local scaling exponent has a maximum deviation from its original value. Interestingly, the scales where the maximum deviation occurs follow a power-law relationship with mu_{r} . Whereas the percentage of data loss determines the extent of the deviation. The results presented in this paper are useful to correctly interpret the scaling properties obtained from signals with extreme data loss.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalSample SizeSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedComputer SimulationStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20365691
PMCPMC3534784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.