Cargando…
Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology
Many biological variables are recorded on a circular scale and therefore need different statistical treatment. A common question that is asked of such circular data involves comparison between two groups: Are the populations from which the two samples are drawn differently distributed around the cir...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8514454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34645855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99299-5 |
_version_ | 1784583389066559488 |
---|---|
author | Landler, Lukas Ruxton, Graeme D. Malkemper, E. Pascal |
author_facet | Landler, Lukas Ruxton, Graeme D. Malkemper, E. Pascal |
author_sort | Landler, Lukas |
collection | PubMed |
description | Many biological variables are recorded on a circular scale and therefore need different statistical treatment. A common question that is asked of such circular data involves comparison between two groups: Are the populations from which the two samples are drawn differently distributed around the circle? We compared 18 tests for such situations (by simulation) in terms of both abilities to control Type-I error rate near the nominal value, and statistical power. We found that only eight tests offered good control of Type-I error in all our simulated situations. Of these eight, we were able to identify the Watson’s U(2) test and a MANOVA approach, based on trigonometric functions of the data, as offering the best power in the overwhelming majority of our test circumstances. There was often little to choose between these tests in terms of power, and no situation where either of the remaining six tests offered substantially better power than either of these. Hence, we recommend the routine use of either Watson’s U(2) test or MANOVA approach when comparing two samples of circular data. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8514454 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85144542021-10-14 Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology Landler, Lukas Ruxton, Graeme D. Malkemper, E. Pascal Sci Rep Article Many biological variables are recorded on a circular scale and therefore need different statistical treatment. A common question that is asked of such circular data involves comparison between two groups: Are the populations from which the two samples are drawn differently distributed around the circle? We compared 18 tests for such situations (by simulation) in terms of both abilities to control Type-I error rate near the nominal value, and statistical power. We found that only eight tests offered good control of Type-I error in all our simulated situations. Of these eight, we were able to identify the Watson’s U(2) test and a MANOVA approach, based on trigonometric functions of the data, as offering the best power in the overwhelming majority of our test circumstances. There was often little to choose between these tests in terms of power, and no situation where either of the remaining six tests offered substantially better power than either of these. Hence, we recommend the routine use of either Watson’s U(2) test or MANOVA approach when comparing two samples of circular data. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8514454/ /pubmed/34645855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99299-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Landler, Lukas Ruxton, Graeme D. Malkemper, E. Pascal Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology |
title | Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology |
title_full | Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology |
title_fullStr | Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology |
title_full_unstemmed | Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology |
title_short | Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology |
title_sort | advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8514454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34645855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99299-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT landlerlukas adviceoncomparingtwoindependentsamplesofcirculardatainbiology AT ruxtongraemed adviceoncomparingtwoindependentsamplesofcirculardatainbiology AT malkemperepascal adviceoncomparingtwoindependentsamplesofcirculardatainbiology |