ArticleJournal of biological rhythms2019
Comparing Methods for Measurement Error Detection in Serial 24-h Hormonal Data.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rats that learn to vocalize for food reward emit longer and louder appetitive calls and fewer short aversive calls.PloS one · 2024Review
- Effects of Paired Associative Stimulation on Cortical Plasticity in Agonist-Antagonist Muscle Representations.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Outliers in nutrient intake data for U.S. adults: national health and nutrition examination survey 2017-2018.Epidemiologic methods · 2023Article
- EEG Oscillations in Specific Frequency Bands Are Differently Coupled with Angular Joint Angle Kinematics during Rhythmic Passive Elbow Movement.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Nonequivalent After-Effects of Alternating Current Stimulation on Motor Cortex Oscillation and Inhibition: Simulation and Experimental Study.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Impulsive time series modeling with application to luteinizing hormone data.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Relationships Between 24-hour LH and Testosterone Concentrations and With Other Pituitary Hormones in Healthy Older Men.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2021Article
- Climate and air pollution exposure are associated with thyroid function parameters: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2021Article
- Interrelationships Between Pituitary Hormones as Assessed From 24-hour Serum Concentrations in Healthy Older Subjects.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.