How to evaluate models:: Observed vs. predicted or predicted vs. observed?

被引:648
|
作者
Pineiro, Gervasio [1 ]
Perelman, Susana
Guerschman, Juan P.
Paruelo, Jose M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Buenos Aires, CONICET, Fac Agron, IFEVA,Catedra Ecol,Lab Anal Reg & Teledetecc, RA-4453 San Martin, Capital Federal, Argentina
关键词
measured values; simulated values; regression; slope; intercept; linear models; regression coefficient; goodness-of-fit; 1 : 1 line;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.05.006
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
A common and simple approach to evaluate models is to regress predicted vs. observed values (or vice versa) and compare slope and intercept parameters against the 1:1 line. However, based on a review of the literature it seems to be no consensus on which variable (predicted or observed) should be placed in each axis. Although some researchers think that it is identical, probably because r(2) is the same for both regressions, the intercept and the slope of each regression differ and, in turn, may change the result of the model evaluation. We present mathematical evidence showing that the regression of predicted (in the y-axis) vs. observed data (in the x-axis) (PO) to evaluate models is incorrect and should lead to an erroneous estimate of the slope and intercept. In other words, a spurious effect is added to the regression parameters when regressing PO values and comparing them against the 1:1 line. observed (in the y-axis) vs, predicted (in the x-axis) (OP) regressions should be used instead. We also show in an example from the literature that both approaches produce significantly different results that may change the conclusions of the model evaluation. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:316 / 322
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] COMPARISON OF PREDICTED VS. OBSERVED FORECASTING RESULTS FOR CANADIANS WITH CYSTIC FIBROSIS
    Martelli, V
    Sykes, J.
    Burgel, P.
    Bellis, G.
    Stanojevic, S.
    Stephenson, A.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, 2018, 53 : 359 - 360
  • [2] Artificial neural network:: Predicted vs. observed survival in patients with colonic cancer
    Dolgobrodov, S. G.
    Moore, P.
    Marshall, R.
    Bittern, R.
    Steele, R. J. C.
    Cuschieri, A.
    [J]. DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2007, 50 (02) : 184 - 191
  • [3] Predicted vs. observed performances of the L'Aquila gas network during the 2009 earthquake
    d'Onofrio, Anna
    Mastrangelo, Antonio
    Penna, Augusto
    Santo, Antonio
    Silvestri, Francesco
    [J]. ITALIAN GEOTECHNICAL JOURNAL-RIVISTA ITALIANA DI GEOTECNICA, 2013, 47 (04): : 38 - 54
  • [4] Observed vs. predicted mortality in the patients after myocardial revascularisation with sceletonized internal mammary artery
    Susak, S.
    Nicin, S.
    Radovanovic, N.
    [J]. ATHEROSCLEROSIS SUPPLEMENTS, 2006, 7 (03) : 100 - 101
  • [5] CHANGES IN PHARMACY PRACTICE - PREDICTED VS OBSERVED
    NORWOOD, GJ
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION, 1973, 37 (04) : 657 - 662
  • [6] Predicted vs. observed radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis (POPeRA): results from a randomized trial
    Levitsky, A.
    Forslind, K.
    van Vollenhoven, R. F.
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2015, 44 (05) : 348 - 353
  • [7] Access to hospitals: Potential vs. observed
    Wang, Jiaoe
    Du, Fangye
    Huang, Jie
    Liu, Yu
    [J]. CITIES, 2020, 100
  • [8] Predicted vs. measured dislodgeable foliar residues on crops
    Stefanova-Wilbur, Miglena
    Beauvais, Sheryl
    [J]. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2014, 248
  • [10] A study of polarized spectra of magnetic CP stars:: Predicted vs. observed Stokes iQUV profiles for β CrB and 53 Cam
    Bagnulo, S
    Wade, GA
    Donati, JF
    Landstreet, JD
    Leone, F
    Monin, DN
    Stift, MJ
    [J]. ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS, 2001, 369 (03): : 889 - 907