跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究生物测定的剂量反应估计,二元反应本身不足以归为经济学离散选择或因果推断。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Hans-Georg Müller
Thomas Schmitt

二元反应生物测定中的核估计与 Probit 估计

研究问题
如何非参数估计二元剂量反应曲线及给定反应比例对应的有效剂量,并比较其与 Probit 估计的表现?
方法与思路
作者使用核平滑并讨论单调化,推导曲线和有效剂量估计的渐近性质,研究带宽选择及两种渐近置信区间。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,所考察的非 S 形模型下核有效剂量估计均方误差更低,高阶核与局部带宽表现有利,但区间覆盖结果较混合。
阅读关注点
应核对有效剂量反演的条件、单调化和带宽选择方法,以及不同反应水平、模型和区间构造下的模拟比较。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 摘要;模拟优势限于给定模型与设置,不能据此认定核方法普遍优于 Probit,也不能推断刊本变化。

原文摘要

A kernel method for the estimation of quantal dose-response curves is considered. In contrast to parametric modeling, this local smoothing method does not require any assumptions beyond smoothness of the dose-response curve and, in this sense, is nonparametric. In finite-sample situations, the kernel estimate of the dose-response curve is not necessarily monotone and, therefore, if the additional assumption of monotonicity of the dose-response curve is made, a monotonized version is discussed. Bias, variance, asymptotic normality, and uniform consistency, including rates of convergence of kernel estimates, are derived and applied to establish consistency and limiting distribution of kernel estimates of the EDα. Here, EDα is the effective dose at level α, that is, the dose where 100α% of the subjects show a response. The properties of the kernel estimated EDα are compared with the corresponding properties of the maximum likelihood estimator assuming the probit model. Practical application of the kernel method requires choice of a kernel function and of a bandwidth (smoothing window), and methods for global as well as local bandwidth selection are discussed. Another point of interest is the construction of confidence intervals for the estimated EDα. For the kernel method, two asymptotically consistent approaches are presented. These are compared in a simulation study, where the behavior of kernel and probit estimates of the EDα, α = .01, .05, .1, and .5, and of corresponding confidence intervals is observed for four different models (two probit models, one Weibull model, and one normal mixture model). The choice of different kernels and of local bandwidths was compared in another Monte Carlo study. The observed finite sample behavior of the kernel estimate of the ED50 was considerably better (gain of 40%-70% in terms of mean squared error) than that of the probit method under the two nonsigmoid models, whereas it was not drastically worse under the probit models (loss of 20%-30% in terms of mean squared error). Application of higher-order kernels and local bandwidth choice turned out to yield favorable versions of the kernel method. The results concerning observed coverage probabilities for the confidence intervals based on different approaches were more mixed.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文