...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Monitoring and Assessment >Comparison of statistic methods for censored personal exposure to RF-EMF data
【24h】

Comparison of statistic methods for censored personal exposure to RF-EMF data

机译：审查个人对RF-EMF数据的暴露的统计方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Several studies have characterized personal exposure to RF-EMF, which allows possible effects on health to be studied. All equipment has a detection limit, below which we obtain nondetects or censored data. This problem is a challenge for researchers as it makes the analysis of such data complex. We suggest reconsidering the statistical protocols of the nondetects analysis by comparing four different methods. Three of them substitute censored data using different approaches: regression on order of statistics (ROS) to simulate data below the detection limit (Method 1), substituting nondetect values by the detection limit divided by 2 (Method 2), a naive calculation (Method 3) using the detection limit as a valid measurement. The fourth method consists of considering censored data to be missing values (Method 4). This article examines how these methods affect the quantification of personal exposure. We considered data from 14 frequency bands from FM to WiMax measured in Albacete (Spain) for 76 days every 10 s by a personal exposimeter (PEM) Satimo EME Spy 140.Methods 3 and 2 gave similar mean and median values to Method 1, but both underestimated the mean values when high nondetects records occurred, which conditioned the physical description of the real situation. The mean values calculated by Method 4 differed from those obtained by Method 1 but were similar when the percentage of nondetects was below 20%.Our comparison suggests that nondetects can be neglected when the percentage of censored data is low to provide a more realistic physical situation.
机译：数项研究已将个人暴露于RF-EMF的特征定为特征，从而可以研究其对健康的可能影响。所有设备都有检测极限，在该极限以下，我们将获得未检测到的数据或审查数据。这个问题对研究人员来说是一个挑战，因为它使此类数据的分析变得复杂。我们建议通过比较四种不同的方法重新考虑非检测分析的统计协议。他们中的三个使用不同的方法替换了检查数据：按统计顺序回归（ROS）以模拟低于检测极限的数据（方法1），将非检测值除以检测极限除以2（方法2），天真计算（方法） 3）使用检测极限作为有效测量。第四种方法是将审查数据视为缺失值（方法4）。本文研究了这些方法如何影响个人暴露的量化。我们考虑了通过个人光度计（PEM）Satimo EME Spy 140每10 s在阿尔巴塞特（西班牙）测得的FM到WiMax的14个频段的数据，每10 s进行76天。方法3和2的平均值和中值与方法1相似，但是当出现较高的未检测记录时，两者都低估了平均值，从而限制了对实际情况的物理描述。方法4的平均值不同于方法1的平均值，但是当未检测到的百分比低于20％时平均值相似。我们的比较表明，当审查数据的百分比较低时，可以忽略未检测到的值，以提供更真实的物理情况。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号