Posted by
Daniel White on
Mar 17, 2014; 4:47pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Stanley-s-ICA-Intensity-Correlation-Analysis-ICQ-Intensity-Correlation-Quotient-tp5006977.html
Hi All,
>Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:56:50 +0100
>From: Johannes Schindelin <
[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: Stanley's ICA, Intensity Correlation Analysis; ICQ, Intensity
>Correlation Quotient
>
>Hi Jeremy,
>
>On Sun, 16 Mar 2014, Jeremy Adler wrote:
>
>> So I suggest sticking with the Pearson and rank Spearman for correlation
>> analysis, they have a long history. If you really want to go binary, try
>> Kendall's tau.
>For your interest: I am happy to report that Coloc 2 recently learnt to
>calculate Kendall's Tau.
>Ciao,
>Johannes
I think I'm worried that most of our statistical assumptions are actually
false in the case of using Pearsons etc. in coloc analysis of fluorescence
images of biological systems.... why?
Because the intensities distribution of the fluorescence signal are almost
never anything close to being normally distributed: a Gaussian, bell
curve.
The histograms of whole images tend to be dominated by low values, which
make the mean much lower than the mean of the interesting stuff, if that
mean value is actually meaningful in anyway, .... and worse, even if we
choose a region of interest where the biology really is, the histogram in
that ROI is also seldom a normal distribution either....
Do we need a totally different statistical approach? What methods don't
assume a normal distribution?
Best
Dan (of coloc_2)
--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html