Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30120116›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2018

Methods for Handling Left-Censored Data in Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment.

Robert A Canales, Amanda M Wilson, Jennifer I Pearce-Walker, Marc P Verhougstraete, Kelly A Reynolds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Producing ratio measures of effect with quantitative microbial risk assessment.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2023
    Article
  19. 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.

Robert A CanalesMel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Amanda M WilsonMel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA apfeifer@email.arizona.edu.
Jennifer I Pearce-WalkerMel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Marc P VerhougstraeteMel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Kelly A ReynoldsMel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data below detection limits, left-censored data, are common in environmental microbiology, and decisions in handling censored data may have implications for quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). In this paper, we utilize simulated data sets informed by real-world enterovirus water data to evaluate methods for handling left-censored data. Data sets were simulated with four censoring degrees (low [10%], medium [35%], high [65%], and severe [90%]) and one real-life censoring example (97%) and were informed by enterovirus data assuming a lognormal distribution with a limit of detection (LOD) of 2.3 genome copies/liter. For each data set, five methods for handling left-censored data were applied: (i) substitution with LOD/[Formula: see text], (ii) lognormal maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to estimate mean and standard deviation, (iii) Kaplan-Meier estimation (KM), (iv) imputation method using MLE to estimate distribution parameters (MI method 1), and (v) imputation from a uniform distribution (MI method 2). Each data set mean was used to estimate enterovirus dose and infection risk. Root mean square error (RMSE) and bias were used to compare estimated and known doses and infection risks. MI method 1 resulted in the lowest dose and infection risk RMSE and bias ranges for most censoring degrees, predicting infection risks at most 1.17 × 10

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalEnvironmental MicrobiologyLimit of DetectionComputer SimulationDrinking WaterEnterovirusGenome, ViralHumansModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentWater MicrobiologyDrinking Waterleft censoredlimit of detectionquantitative microbial risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID30120116
PMCPMC6182903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.