Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:04:58.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Point and interval estimation in the combination of bioassay results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. Armitage ,
B. M. Bennett  and
D. J. Finney
P. Armitage
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
B. M. Bennett
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
D. J. Finney
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Edinburgh
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A procedure for combining evidence from different biological assays is shown to be equivalent both to generalized least-squares and to maximum-likelihood estimation. By appropriate nesting of hypotheses, the likelihood function can be used to test the agreement between the assays and to obtain probability limits for the combined estimate of potency. The properties of these limits are examined, with particular reference to the situation, unusual but not impossible in practice, in which the values of relative potency that they define consist of several disjoint segments instead of a single interval. The connexion with general theory of estimating linear functional relations is pointed out.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 147 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

References

REFERENCES

Armitage, P. (1970). The combination of assay results. Biometrika, 57, 665–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, P. & Bennett, B. M. (1974). Maximum likelihood solutions for the combination of relative potencies. Journal of Hygiene 73, 97–9.Google Scholar
Armitage, P., Bailey, J. M., Petrie, A., Annable, L. & Stack-Dunne, M. P. (1974). Studies in the combination of bio-assay results. Biometrics 30, 1–10.Google Scholar
Barnett, V. D. (1966). Evaluation of maximum likelihood estimator where the maximum likelihood equation has multiple roots. Biometrika 53, 151–65.Google Scholar
Beale, E. M. L. (1960). Confidence regions in non-linear estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 22, 41–88.Google Scholar
Beale, E. M. L. (1966). Contribution to discussion on Sprent (1966).Google Scholar
Bennett, B. M. (1962). On combining estimates of relative potency in bioassay. Journal of Hygiene 60, 379–85.Google Scholar
Bennett, B. M. (1963 a). On combining estimates of a ratio of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 25, 201–5.Google Scholar
Bennett, B. M. (1963 b). Slope ratio assays and confidence limits. Metrika 7, 117–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. L. (1957). Bivariate structural relation, Biometrika 44, 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolby, G. R. (1972). Generalized least squares and maximum likelihood estimation of nonlinear functional relationships. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 34, 393–400.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F. (1972). Likelihood. CambridgeUniversity Press.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1964). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 2nd ed. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Smith, K. W., Marks, H. P., Fieller, E. C. & Broom, W. A. (1944). An extended cross-over design and its use in insulin assay. Quarterly Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 17, 108–17.Google Scholar
Sprent, P. (1966). A generalized least-squares approach to linear functional relationships. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 28, 278–97.Google Scholar
Sprent, P. (1969). Models in Regression and Related Topics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Villegas, C. (1964). Confidence regions for a linear relation. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35, 780–8.Google Scholar