Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31187683›Full record

ArticleJournal of biological rhythms2019

Comparing Methods for Measurement Error Detection in Serial 24-h Hormonal Data.

Evie van der Spoel, Jungyeon Choi, Ferdinand Roelfsema, Saskia le Cessie, Diana van Heemst, Olaf M Dekkers

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biological rhythms, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Evie van der SpoelSection Gerontology and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7112-4145
Jungyeon ChoiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Ferdinand RoelfsemaSection Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Saskia le CessieDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Diana van HeemstSection Gerontology and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Olaf M DekkersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement errors commonly occur in 24-h hormonal data and may affect the outcomes of such studies. Measurement errors often appear as outliers in such data sets; however, no well-established method is available for their automatic detection. In this study, we aimed to compare performances of different methods for outlier detection in hormonal serial data. Hormones (glucose, insulin, thyroid-stimulating hormone, cortisol, and growth hormone) were measured in blood sampled every 10 min for 24 h in 38 participants of the Leiden Longevity Study. Four methods for detecting outliers were compared: (1) eyeballing, (2) Tukey's fences, (3) stepwise approach, and (4) the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. Eyeballing detects outliers based on experts' knowledge, and the stepwise approach incorporates physiological knowledge with a statistical algorithm. Tukey's fences and the EM algorithm are data-driven methods, using interquartile range and a mathematical algorithm to identify the underlying distribution, respectively. The performance of the methods was evaluated based on the number of outliers detected and the change in statistical outcomes after removing detected outliers. Eyeballing resulted in the lowest number of outliers detected (1.0% of all data points), followed by Tukey's fences (2.3%), the stepwise approach (2.7%), and the EM algorithm (11.0%). In all methods, the mean hormone levels did not change materially after removing outliers. However, their minima were affected by outlier removal. Although removing outliers affected the correlation between glucose and insulin on the individual level, when averaged over all participants, none of the 4 methods influenced the correlation. Based on our results, the EM algorithm is not recommended given the high number of outliers detected, even where data points are physiologically plausible. Since Tukey's fences is not suitable for all types of data and eyeballing is time-consuming, we recommend the stepwise approach for outlier detection, which combines physiological knowledge and an automated process.

Indexed as

Circadian RhythmAlgorithmsHormonesHumansReproducibility of ResultsHormonesautomatic outlier detectionhormonesmeasurement erroroutliertime series

Identifiers

PMID31187683
PMCPMC6637814
OpenAlexW2953016822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.