Suppr超能文献

评估用于评估血小板动力学的数学模型。

Evaluation of mathematic models to assess platelet kinetics.

作者信息

Lötter M G, Heyns A D, Badenhorst P N, Wessels P, Martin van Zyl J, Kotze H F, Minnaar P C

出版信息

J Nucl Med. 1986 Jul;27(7):1192-201.

PMID:3088224
Abstract

Twelve mathematic methods used to calculate the mean platelet survival time were compared by determining the "goodness of fit" of the models to the platelet survival curves of 15 reference subjects and 54 patients. Platelets were labeled with [111In]oxine. The linear (LN), exponential, weighted mean, multiple hit (MH), Dornhorst (DH), Meuleman (ML), alpha order (AO), and polynomial (PO) mathematic models were investigated. The goodness of fit for the exponential model was determined by the nonlinear least squares method (EP), and also by the linear least squares method on logarithmically transformed data (EX) as is recommended. The modified weighted mean (MWM) and the usual weighted mean method (WM) obtained with these exponential models were tested. The Dornhorst (DH10) and Meuleman (ML10) models, where the potential age-dependent platelet survival times were kept constant at 10 days, were also evaluated. The goodness of fit results, expressed as % s.d. indicated that the LN (5.2%), EX (5.0%), EP (4.4%), WM (3.7%), DH10 (3.7%), and ML10 (3.7%) models all fitted the data significantly worse than the MWM, MH, DH, ML, AO, and PO models (range 3.2-3.3%). The mean platelet survival time determined with the MH model differed significantly from the results with the DH, ML, and AO models. The results of mean platelet survival time calculated with different mathematic models cannot, therefore, be compared directly. The models that fitted the platelet survival curve well varied slightly in sensitivity to noise as is indicated by the coefficient of variation of the mean platelet survival time estimates for the reference subjects (range 7.9-12.0%). Fitting data to at least two mathematic models has definite advantages. Data on which the calculations are based are probably invalid if the following are true: (a) if the mean platelet survival time estimated with the alpha order model is shorter than that estimated with the EP, MWM, or MH models, or (b) the mean platelet survival time estimated with either the DH, ML, AO, or PO models, is longer than the LN, MWM, or MH estimate of the mean platelet survival time. We conclude that the mean platelet survival time can be reliably estimated by fitting the data to either the MWM method (if limited computing facilities are available) or the MH model. Confidence in the result will be increased if considered in conjunction with the finding obtained with one other model; in those cases where the platelet survival time is very short, the alpha order model is recommended.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

摘要

通过测定15名参考对象和54名患者的血小板存活曲线与模型的“拟合优度”,比较了用于计算平均血小板存活时间的12种数学方法。血小板用[111In]氧嗪标记。研究了线性(LN)、指数、加权平均、多重打击(MH)、多恩霍斯特(DH)、默勒曼(ML)、α阶(AO)和多项式(PO)数学模型。指数模型的拟合优度通过非线性最小二乘法(EP)确定,也按照推荐通过对对数变换数据使用线性最小二乘法(EX)确定。测试了由这些指数模型得到的修正加权平均(MWM)和常规加权平均方法(WM)。还评估了多恩霍斯特(DH10)和默勒曼(ML10)模型,其中潜在的年龄依赖性血小板存活时间保持恒定为10天。以标准差百分比表示的拟合优度结果表明,LN(5.2%)、EX(5.0%)、EP(4.4%)、WM(3.7%)、DH10(3.7%)和ML10(3.7%)模型对数据的拟合明显不如MWM、MH、DH、ML、AO和PO模型(范围为3.2 - 3.3%)。用MH模型确定的平均血小板存活时间与用DH、ML和AO模型得到的结果有显著差异。因此,用不同数学模型计算的平均血小板存活时间结果不能直接比较。参考对象平均血小板存活时间估计值的变异系数表明,对血小板存活曲线拟合良好的模型在对噪声的敏感性上略有不同(范围为7.9 - 12.0%)。将数据拟合到至少两个数学模型有明确的优势。如果以下情况为真,则计算所基于的数据可能无效:(a)用α阶模型估计的平均血小板存活时间短于用EP、MWM或MH模型估计的时间,或者(b)用DH、ML、AO或PO模型估计的平均血小板存活时间长于用LN、MWM或MH模型估计的平均血小板存活时间。我们得出结论,通过将数据拟合到MWM方法(如果计算设施有限)或MH模型,可以可靠地估计平均血小板存活时间。如果结合使用另一个模型得到的结果来考虑,对结果的信心将会增强;在血小板存活时间非常短的情况下,推荐使用α阶模型。(摘要截断于400字)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验