Matyska L, Kovár J
Biochem J. 1985 Oct 1;231(1):171-7. doi: 10.1042/bj2310171.
The known jackknife methods (i.e. standard jackknife, weighted jackknife, linear jackknife and weighted linear jackknife) for the determination of the parameters (as well as of their confidence regions) were tested and compared with the simple Marquardt's technique (comprising the calculation of confidence intervals from the variance-co-variance matrix). The simulated data corresponding to the Michaelis-Menten equation with defined structure and magnitude of error of the dependent variable were used for fitting. There were no essential differences between the results of both point and interval parameter estimations by the tested methods. Marquardt's procedure yielded slightly better results than the jackknives for five scattered data points (the use of this method is advisable for routine analyses). The classical jackknife was slightly superior to the other methods for 20 data points (this method can be recommended for very precise calculations if great numbers of data are available). The weighting does not seem to be necessary in this type of equation because the parameter estimates obtained with all methods with the use of constant weights were comparable with those calculated with the weights corresponding exactly to the real error structure whereas the relative weighting led to rather worse results.
对用于确定参数(及其置信区间)的已知刀切法(即标准刀切法、加权刀切法、线性刀切法和加权线性刀切法)进行了测试,并与简单的马夸特技术(包括从方差协方差矩阵计算置信区间)进行了比较。使用与具有定义结构和因变量误差大小的米氏方程相对应的模拟数据进行拟合。通过测试方法进行的点估计和区间参数估计结果之间没有本质差异。对于五个分散的数据点,马夸特程序的结果略优于刀切法(建议在常规分析中使用此方法)。对于20个数据点,经典刀切法略优于其他方法(如果有大量数据,此方法可推荐用于非常精确的计算)。在这类方程中,加权似乎没有必要,因为使用恒定权重的所有方法获得的参数估计与使用与实际误差结构完全对应的权重计算的参数估计相当,而相对加权导致的结果更差。