Problems with binary pattern measures for flood model evaluation

As the calibration and evaluation of flood inundation models are a prerequisite for their successful application, there is a clear need to ensure that the performance measures that quantify how well models match the available observations are fit for purpose. This paper evaluates the binary pattern performance measures that are frequently used to compare flood inundation models with observations of flood extent. This evaluation considers whether these measures are able to calibrate and evaluate model predictions in a credible and consistent way, i.e. identifying the underlying model behaviour for a number of different purposes such as comparing models of floods of different magnitudes or on different catchments. Through theoretical examples, it is shown that the binary pattern measures are not consistent for floods of different sizes, such that for the same vertical error in water level, a model of a flood of large magnitude appears to perform better than a model of a smaller magnitude flood. Further, the commonly used Critical Success Index (usually referred to as F<2 >) is biased in favour of overprediction of the flood extent, and is also biased towards correctly predicting areas of the domain with smaller topographic gradients. Consequently, it is recommended that future studies consider carefully the implications of reporting conclusions using these performance measures. Additionally, future research should consider whether a more robust and consistent analysis could be achieved by using elevation comparison methods instead.

Sample size considerations in active-control non-inferiority trials with binary data based on the odds ratio

This paper presents an approximate closed form sample size formula for determining non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data. We use the odds-ratio as the measure of the relative treatment effect, derive the sample size formula based on the score test and compare it with a second, well-known formula based on the Wald test. Both closed form formulae are compared with simulations based on the likelihood ratio test. Within the range of parameter values investigated, the score test closed form formula is reasonably accurate when non-inferiority margins are based on odds-ratios of about 0.5 or above and when the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis lies between about 1 and 2.5. The accuracy generally decreases as the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis moves upwards from 1. As the non-inferiority margin odds ratio decreases from 0.5, the score test closed form formula increasingly overestimates the sample size irrespective of the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. The Wald test closed form formula is also reasonably accurate in the cases where the score test closed form formula works well. Outside these scenarios, the Wald test closed form formula can either underestimate or overestimate the sample size, depending on the magnitude of the non-inferiority margin odds ratio and the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. Although neither approximation is accurate for all cases, both approaches lead to satisfactory sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials with binary data where the odds ratio is the parameter of interest.

Decimal growth stages for precision wheat production in changing environments?

The utility of the decimal growth stage (DGS) scoring system for cereals is reviewed. The DGS is the most widely used scale in academic and commercial applications because of its comprehensive coverage of cereal developmental stages, the ease of use and definition provided and adoption by official agencies. The DGS has demonstrable and established value in helping to optimise the timing of agronomic inputs, particularly with regard to plant growth regulators, herbicides, fungicides and soluble nitrogen fertilisers. In addition, the DGS is used to help parameterise crop models, and also in understanding the response and adaptation of crops to the environment. The value of the DGS for increasing precision relies on it indicating, to some degree, the various stages in the development of the stem apex and spike. Coincidence of specific growth stage scores with the transition of the apical meristem from a vegetative to a reproductive state, and also with the period of meiosis, is unreliable. Nonetheless, in pot experiments it is shown that the broad period of booting (DGS 41–49) appears adequate for covering the duration when the vulnerability of meiosis to drought and heat stress is exposed. Similarly, the duration of anthesis (61–69) is particularly susceptible to abiotic stresses: initially from a fertility perspective, but increasingly from a mean grain weight perspective as flowering progresses to DGS 69 and then milk development. These associations with DGS can have value at the crop level of organisation: for interpreting environmental effects, and in crop modelling. However, genetic, biochemical and physiological analysis to develop greater understanding of stress acclimation during the vegetative state, and tolerance at meiosis, does require more precision than DGS can provide. Similarly, individual floret analysis is needed to further understand the genetic basis of stress tolerance during anthesis.