If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
Hi--
I am reviewing a scientific manuscript for publication. In the article, they graph data in excel and use the curve fitting function to estimate days when nadirs are reached. To me, that seems like a misuse of trendlines, but I'm appealing to the statistically savvy people on this group. Here is the type of data-- Day Result 1 114% 4 107% 8 92% 13 81% 28 79% 42 92% 68 84% 91 89% 112 92% Based on an excel curve, the authors estimated that the actual nadir occurred on day 24. However, in my mind, that's an inappropriate use of the curve fitting function. Comments? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
What kind of model did they fit their data to? Excel has none that is
valid and comes up with 24. I get a fit that comes very close (R^2 0.99) to each point if I use a polynomial fit of order 6. Of course, this sets up an oscillating curve with minima at about 22 (75%) and 79 (78%), and maxima at 51 (96%) and 105 (111%). When plotted, this is clearly an unrealistic fit and should be discarded. I can fit a line to the first four points, and another line to the last 5 or 6 points (doesn't make much difference) and these lines intersect at 12-13. If I ignore the bump at the 6th point and fit points 5 and 7-9, this intersects the first line at 14. Both of these fits are better than a poly fit. The best way to fit this data is to come up with a physical mechanism that describes the process that produced the data, and use appropriate coefficients in the related model. - Jon ------- Jon Peltier Peltier Technical Services, Inc. http://peltiertech.com/ EBL wrote: Hi-- I am reviewing a scientific manuscript for publication. In the article, they graph data in excel and use the curve fitting function to estimate days when nadirs are reached. To me, that seems like a misuse of trendlines, but I'm appealing to the statistically savvy people on this group. Here is the type of data-- Day Result 1 114% 4 107% 8 92% 13 81% 28 79% 42 92% 68 84% 91 89% 112 92% Based on an excel curve, the authors estimated that the actual nadir occurred on day 24. However, in my mind, that's an inappropriate use of the curve fitting function. Comments? Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
Thanks for the reply.
Their M&M just says that curves were fit using excel. I think they picked an XY chart and the option of scatter with data points connected with smoothed lines (at least--when I do that, I get a curve that looks identical to the one that they provided in the draft manuscript). I think you're confirming what I thought but couldn't articulate--that this is a simplistic and scienfitically unacceptable way to estimate a value at an unmeasured time point because a model to fit the data needs to be based on measured or estimated parameters/coefficients describing the biological process that they are attempting to model. Correct? On Oct 13, 6:15*am, Jon Peltier wrote: What kind of model did they fit their data to? Excel has none that is valid and comes up with 24. I get a fit that comes very close (R^2 0.99) to each point if I use a polynomial fit of order 6. Of course, this sets up an oscillating curve with minima at about 22 (75%) and 79 (78%), and maxima at 51 (96%) and 105 (111%). When plotted, this is clearly an unrealistic fit and should be discarded. I can fit a line to the first four points, and another line to the last 5 or 6 points (doesn't make much difference) and these lines intersect at 12-13. If I ignore the bump at the 6th point and fit points 5 and 7-9, this intersects the first line at 14. Both of these fits are better than a poly fit. The best way to fit this data is to come up with a physical mechanism that describes the process that produced the data, and use appropriate coefficients in the related model. - Jon ------- Jon Peltier Peltier Technical Services, Inc.http://peltiertech.com/ EBL wrote: Hi-- I am reviewing a scientific manuscript for publication. *In the article, they graph data in excel and use the curve fitting function to estimate days when nadirs are reached. *To me, that seems like a misuse of trendlines, but I'm appealing to the statistically savvy people on this group. *Here is the type of data-- Day * * Result 1 *114% 4 *107% 8 *92% 13 81% 28 79% 42 92% 68 84% 91 89% 112 * * * *92% Based on an excel curve, the authors estimated that the actual nadir occurred on day 24. *However, in my mind, that's an inappropriate use of the curve fitting function. *Comments? Thanks.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
Oh yeah, I didn't even consider the "smoothed line" method. This in no
way follows the path of the data. The curves are bezier curves connecting adjacent points, and can stray far from the position of actual data. Using smoothed lines is as invalid as using a polynomial fit. - Jon ------- Jon Peltier Peltier Technical Services, Inc. http://peltiertech.com/ EBL wrote: Thanks for the reply. Their M&M just says that curves were fit using excel. I think they picked an XY chart and the option of scatter with data points connected with smoothed lines (at least--when I do that, I get a curve that looks identical to the one that they provided in the draft manuscript). I think you're confirming what I thought but couldn't articulate--that this is a simplistic and scienfitically unacceptable way to estimate a value at an unmeasured time point because a model to fit the data needs to be based on measured or estimated parameters/coefficients describing the biological process that they are attempting to model. Correct? On Oct 13, 6:15 am, Jon Peltier wrote: What kind of model did they fit their data to? Excel has none that is valid and comes up with 24. I get a fit that comes very close (R^2 0.99) to each point if I use a polynomial fit of order 6. Of course, this sets up an oscillating curve with minima at about 22 (75%) and 79 (78%), and maxima at 51 (96%) and 105 (111%). When plotted, this is clearly an unrealistic fit and should be discarded. I can fit a line to the first four points, and another line to the last 5 or 6 points (doesn't make much difference) and these lines intersect at 12-13. If I ignore the bump at the 6th point and fit points 5 and 7-9, this intersects the first line at 14. Both of these fits are better than a poly fit. The best way to fit this data is to come up with a physical mechanism that describes the process that produced the data, and use appropriate coefficients in the related model. - Jon ------- Jon Peltier Peltier Technical Services, Inc.http://peltiertech.com/ EBL wrote: Hi-- I am reviewing a scientific manuscript for publication. In the article, they graph data in excel and use the curve fitting function to estimate days when nadirs are reached. To me, that seems like a misuse of trendlines, but I'm appealing to the statistically savvy people on this group. Here is the type of data-- Day Result 1 114% 4 107% 8 92% 13 81% 28 79% 42 92% 68 84% 91 89% 112 92% Based on an excel curve, the authors estimated that the actual nadir occurred on day 24. However, in my mind, that's an inappropriate use of the curve fitting function. Comments? Thanks.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
Plus, Excel's Bezier curve seems to have its minimum on day 23, not day 24.
Any idea what Herbert Seidenberg is talking about? He claims a "better fit" in 2007 but does not say better in what way, and like the authors of the paper, fails to say what kind of fit. Also his download link is useless to those of us who do not use 2007. Jerry "Jon Peltier" wrote: Oh yeah, I didn't even consider the "smoothed line" method. This in no way follows the path of the data. The curves are bezier curves connecting adjacent points, and can stray far from the position of actual data. Using smoothed lines is as invalid as using a polynomial fit. .... What kind of model did they fit their data to? Excel has none that is valid and comes up with 24. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
Jerry -
I hate the way he just posts an undocumented link to an xlsx file. I prefer seeing a description in an html page, without having to download and open a whole workbook. This is the first of his links I've ever bothered to follow, and I'm in no hurry to follow another. Anyway, he linked to a site called http://zunzun.com, which I gather he used to fit the meager data to a function of the form y = x / (a * exp(-exp(b - c * x))) + d - Jon ------- Jon Peltier Peltier Technical Services, Inc. http://peltiertech.com/ Jerry W. Lewis wrote: Plus, Excel's Bezier curve seems to have its minimum on day 23, not day 24. Any idea what Herbert Seidenberg is talking about? He claims a "better fit" in 2007 but does not say better in what way, and like the authors of the paper, fails to say what kind of fit. Also his download link is useless to those of us who do not use 2007. Jerry "Jon Peltier" wrote: Oh yeah, I didn't even consider the "smoothed line" method. This in no way follows the path of the data. The curves are bezier curves connecting adjacent points, and can stray far from the position of actual data. Using smoothed lines is as invalid as using a polynomial fit. ... What kind of model did they fit their data to? Excel has none that is valid and comes up with 24. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
I agree, the analysis is sloppy and more info is needed.
Three common interpolation methods for smooth functions give very different values for minima around the interval of interest. Using the formulae below the global minima were found, with the aid of solver, to be at x = 23.25, 20.65 and 31.74 respectively. Data range=A2:B10, first is ctrl+shift+entered in two cells, (0 t = 1): "Smooth line": =MMULT(t^{0,1,2,3},MMULT({0,2,0,0;-1,0,1,0;2,-5,4,-1;-1,3,-3,1}/2,A4:B7)) Cubic: =TREND(B4:B7,A4:A7^{3,2,1},x^{3,2,1}) Lagrange: =TREND(B2:B10,A2:A10^{8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1},x^{8,7,6,5, 4,3,2,1}) "Jon Peltier" wrote in message ... Jerry - I hate the way he just posts an undocumented link to an xlsx file. I prefer seeing a description in an html page, without having to download and open a whole workbook. This is the first of his links I've ever bothered to follow, and I'm in no hurry to follow another. Anyway, he linked to a site called http://zunzun.com, which I gather he used to fit the meager data to a function of the form y = x / (a * exp(-exp(b - c * x))) + d - Jon ------- Jon Peltier Peltier Technical Services, Inc. http://peltiertech.com/ Jerry W. Lewis wrote: Plus, Excel's Bezier curve seems to have its minimum on day 23, not day 24. Any idea what Herbert Seidenberg is talking about? He claims a "better fit" in 2007 but does not say better in what way, and like the authors of the paper, fails to say what kind of fit. Also his download link is useless to those of us who do not use 2007. Jerry "Jon Peltier" wrote: Oh yeah, I didn't even consider the "smoothed line" method. This in no way follows the path of the data. The curves are bezier curves connecting adjacent points, and can stray far from the position of actual data. Using smoothed lines is as invalid as using a polynomial fit. ... What kind of model did they fit their data to? Excel has none that is valid and comes up with 24. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
On Oct 16, 4:03*pm, "Lori Miller"
wrote: I agree, the analysis is sloppy and more info is needed. There is a rather obvious outlier at; Day Result 42 92% which I saw by scatterplotting the raw data. Try removing this point. James Phillips http://zunzun.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Use of excel curves as a valid way to estimate unmeasured data
The observation on day 42 is only outlying if you're bound by simple
parametric models and shouldn't necessarily be excluded. In fact it forms a significant part of the basis for the nadir estimate and i doubt the authors of the paper would have included it otherwise. In the absence of an underlying theoretical model, any inference on scarce data is necessarily vague, and the practice of trying arbitrary data models until you find one that fits is not generally recommended due to the problems of overfitting and data snooping. PS. To clarify the remark was directed at the OP: chart-based estimates should be avoided in any scientific paper, in addition an inaccurate value is given without a mitigating explanation it seems. "zunzun.com" wrote: On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, "Lori Miller" wrote: I agree, the analysis is sloppy and more info is needed. There is a rather obvious outlier at; Day Result 42 92% which I saw by scatterplotting the raw data. Try removing this point. James Phillips http://zunzun.com . |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|