Example [Bioanalytics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-17 01:56 (512 d 06:41 ago) – Posting: # 20043
Views: 2,903

Hi ElMaestro,

played with an example of a study I have on my desk. Chiral GC/MS, quadratic model, w=1/x2.

ObjF1 <- function(x) {
  w <- 1/Conc^x
  M <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w)
  return(sum(abs(resid(M)/Conc)))
}
ObjF2 <- function(x) {
  w <- 1/Ratio^x
  M <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w)
  return(sum(abs(resid(M)/Conc)))
}
IC <- function(m, n) {
  return(list(AIC=signif(extractAIC(m, k=2)[2],5),
              BIC=signif(extractAIC(m, k=log(n))[2]),5))
}
Acc <- function(m, x, y) {
  if (coef(m)[[3]] == 0) stop("panic!")
  if (coef(m)[[3]] < 0 {
    return(100*(-(coef(m)[[2]]/2/coef(m)[[3]] +
                  sqrt((coef(m)[[2]]/2/coef(m)[[3]])^2-
                       (coef(m)[[1]]-y)/coef(m)[[3]])))/x)
  } else {
    return(100*(-(coef(m)[[2]]/2/coef(m)[[3]] -
                  sqrt((coef(m)[[2]]/2/coef(m)[[3]])^2-
                       (coef(m)[[1]]-y)/coef(m)[[3]])))/x)
  }
}
Conc  <- c(0.1, 0.1, 0.3, 0.3, 0.9, 0.9, 2, 2, 6, 6, 12, 12, 24, 24)
Ratio <- c(0.022, 0.024, 0.073, 0.068, 0.193, 0.204, 0.438, 0.433,
           1.374, 1.376, 2.762, 2.732, 5.616, 5.477)
n     <- length(Conc)
w.x1  <- 1/Conc
w.x2  <- 1/Conc^2
x.opt <- optimize(ObjF1,  c(0, 10))$minimum
w.xo  <- 1/Conc^x.opt
w.y1  <- 1/Ratio
w.y2  <- 1/Ratio^2
y.opt <- optimize(ObjF2,  c(0, 10))$minimum
w.yo  <- 1/Ratio^x.opt
dupl  <- sum(duplicated(Conc))
var   <- n/2
for (j in 1:dupl) {
  var[j] <- var(c(Ratio[j], Ratio[j+1]))
}
w.var <- 1/rep(var, each=2)
m.1   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2))
m.2   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w.x1)
m.3   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w.x2)
m.4   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w.xo)
m.5   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w.y1)
m.6   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w.y2)
m.7   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w.yo)
m.8   <- lm(Ratio ~ Conc + I(Conc^2), weights=w.var)
mods  <- c("w=1", "w=1/x", "w=1/x^2", "w=1/x^opt",
           "w=1/y", "w=1/y^2", "w=1/y^opt", "w=1/sd.y^2")
AIC   <- c(IC(m.1, n=n)$AIC, IC(m.2, n=n)$AIC, IC(m.3, n=n)$AIC, IC(m.4, n=n)$AIC,
           IC(m.5, n=n)$AIC, IC(m.6, n=n)$AIC, IC(m.7, n=n)$AIC, IC(m.8, n=n)$AIC)
BIC   <- c(IC(m.1, n=n)$BIC, IC(m.2, n=n)$BIC, IC(m.3, n=n)$BIC, IC(m.4, n=n)$BIC,
           IC(m.5, n=n)$BIC, IC(m.6, n=n)$BIC, IC(m.7, n=n)$BIC, IC(m.8, n=n)$BIC)
res1  <- data.frame(model=mods, exp=signif(c(0:2, x.opt, 1:2, y.opt, NA),5),
                    AIC=signif(AIC,5), BIC=signif(BIC,5))
res2  <- data.frame(Conc=Conc,
                    Acc(m=m.1, x=Conc, y=Ratio), Acc(m=m.2, x=Conc, y=Ratio),
                    Acc(m=m.3, x=Conc, y=Ratio), Acc(m=m.4, x=Conc, y=Ratio),
                    Acc(m=m.5, x=Conc, y=Ratio), Acc(m=m.6, x=Conc, y=Ratio),
                    Acc(m=m.7, x=Conc, y=Ratio), Acc(m=m.8, x=Conc, y=Ratio))
names(res2) <- c("Conc", mods)
cat("\nAkaike & Bayesian Information Critera (smaller is better)\n");print(res1);cat("\nAccuracy (%)\n");print(round(res2, 2), row.names=F)


I got:

Akaike & Bayesian Information Critera (smaller is better)
       model    exp      AIC      BIC
1        w=1 0.0000  -94.099  -92.181
2      w=1/x 1.0000 -127.480 -125.560
3    w=1/x^2 2.0000 -131.720 -129.800

4  w=1/x^opt 1.3355 -132.920 -131.010
5      w=1/y 1.0000 -106.670 -104.750
6    w=1/y^2 2.0000  -90.571  -88.654
7  w=1/y^opt 2.5220 -105.150 -103.230

8 w=1/sd.y^2     NA   62.387   64.304

Accuracy (%)
 Conc    w=1  w=1/x w=1/x^2 w=1/x^opt  w=1/y w=1/y^2 w=1/y^opt w=1/sd.y^2
  0.1 115.66  96.07   94.53     94.63  96.48   94.95     95.02      99.04
  0.1 124.45 104.96  103.49    103.56 105.37  103.93    103.96     107.83
  0.3 113.24 107.57  107.64    107.46 107.74  107.97    107.65     107.71
  0.3 105.92 100.17  100.18    100.02 100.33  100.49    100.21     100.39
  0.9  96.30  95.06   95.52     95.29  95.14   95.77     95.41      94.46
  0.9 101.66 100.48  100.98    100.74 100.56  101.24    100.86      99.83
  2.0  97.07  97.06   97.63     97.40  97.12   97.85     97.49      96.25
  2.0  95.97  95.96   96.51     96.29  96.01   96.74     96.38      95.15
  6.0 100.54 101.06  101.53    101.37 101.10  101.71    101.43     100.29
  6.0 100.69 101.21  101.68    101.51 101.24  101.85    101.58     100.44
 12.0 100.48 100.86  101.08    101.03 100.89  101.18    101.07     100.38
 12.0  99.40  99.78  100.01     99.95  99.81  100.10     99.99      99.30
 24.0 101.23 101.10  100.81    100.98 101.10  100.75    100.98     101.23
 24.0  98.77  98.66   98.40     98.56  98.67   98.35     98.56      98.77


Hey, yours with w=1/x1.3355 is the winner! Duno why the ICs of 1/sy² are that bad. Coding error? The accuracy looks fine. Try a plot:

plot(Conc, Ratio, type="n", log="xy", las=1)
points(Conc, Ratio, pch=21, cex=1.5, col="blue", bg="#CCCCFF80")
curve(coef(m.4)[[1]]+coef(m.4)[[2]]*x+coef(m.4)[[3]]*x^2, range(Conc),
      lwd=2, col="darkgreen", add=TRUE)
curve(coef(m.8)[[1]]+coef(m.8)[[2]]*x+coef(m.8)[[3]]*x^2, range(Conc),
      lwd=2, col="red", add=TRUE)

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,991 posts in 4,375 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 17 (0 registered, 17 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 09:38 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they
also make very poor observations.    Claude Bernard

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5