Cited by 38Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical studies and practices

The ghosts of departed quantities: approaches to dealing with observations below the limit of quantitation

Senn, Stephen, Holford, Nick, Hockey, Hans·2012·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

A common but not necessarily logical requirement in drug development is that a 'limit of quantitation' be set for chemical assays and that observations that fall below the limit should not be treated as real data but should be labelled as below the limit and set aside for special treatment. We examine five of seven approaches to analysing such data considered by Beal in 2001, concentrating in particular on two: one that treats the data as a truncated sample and another that treats them as a censored sample. In fact, using a pattern-mixture framework, one can show that the former consists of using the conditional distribution of the 'acceptable values' and the latter adds the information from the marginal mixing distribution. We illustrate these approaches with a real example, concentrating in particular on the two likelihood-based methods, provide various formulae that may be used to compare these and other approaches, check these formulae using simulations and make some recommendations as to which approach one should use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.5515

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Concentration data below LOQ but not below LOD were included to evaluate the excretion profile because inclusion can result in a better fit and excluding or replacing them with zero could lead to biased pharmacokinetic parameters.

    “Concentration data below the LOQ (but not below the LOD) were included to evaluate the excretion profile, as their inclusion can result in a better fit of the excretion profile model, while excluding or replacing them with zero could lead to biased pharmacokinetic parameters [39,40,41,42].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Senn, S., Holford, N., & Hockey, H.
Affiliations
  • Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé (LU)
  • Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand
  • Biometrics Matters Limited 13 Nevada Road Hamilton 3126 New Zealand
Corresponding author
Senn, Stephen
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-07-24
Volume
31
Issue
30
Pages
4280-4295
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2126541486
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Glasgow
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
limit of quantification, truncated data, censored data, pattern-mixture models, likelihood methods, drug development
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Pharmacokinetics, Pyrimidines, Research Design, Triazoles, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Normal Distribution, Likelihood Functions, Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, Voriconazole

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review