Valsami G, Iliadis A, Macheras P
School of Pharmacy, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2000 Jan;21(1):7-14. doi: 10.1002/1099-081x(200001)21:1<7::aid-bdd210>3.0.co;2-f.
Four different parameter estimation criteria, the geometric mean functional relationship (GMFR), the maximum likelihood (ML), the perpendicular least-squares (PLS) and the non-linear weighted least squares (WLS), were used to fit a model to the observed data when both regression variables were subject to error. Performances of these criteria were evaluated by fitting the co-operative drug-protein binding Hill model on simulated data containing errors in both variables. Six types of data were simulated with known variances. Comparison of the criteria was done by evaluating the bias, the relative standard deviation (S.D.) and the root-mean-squared error (RMSE), between estimated and true parameter values. Results show that (1) for data with correlated errors, all criteria perform poorly; in particular, the GMFR and ML criteria. For data with uncorrelated errors, all criteria perform equally well with regard to the RMSE. (2) Use of GMFR and ML lead to lower values for S.D. but higher biases compared with WLS and PLS. (3) WLS performs less well when equal dispersion is applied to the two observed variables.
当两个回归变量都存在误差时,使用四种不同的参数估计标准,即几何平均函数关系(GMFR)、最大似然法(ML)、正交最小二乘法(PLS)和非线性加权最小二乘法(WLS)对观测数据进行模型拟合。通过将协同药物-蛋白质结合希尔模型拟合到两个变量都存在误差的模拟数据上来评估这些标准的性能。模拟了六种具有已知方差的数据类型。通过评估估计参数值与真实参数值之间的偏差、相对标准差(S.D.)和均方根误差(RMSE)来比较这些标准。结果表明:(1)对于具有相关误差的数据,所有标准的表现都很差;特别是GMFR和ML标准。对于具有不相关误差的数据,就RMSE而言,所有标准的表现都一样好。(2)与WLS和PLS相比,使用GMFR和ML会导致较低的S.D.值,但偏差较高。(3)当对两个观测变量应用相等的离散度时,WLS的表现较差。