MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043640852 · doi:10.1177/0962280213476771

Adjusted inference procedures for the interobserver agreement in twin studies

2013· article· en· W2043640852 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie N. Dixon, Allan Donner, Mohamed M. Shoukri

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInferenceStatisticsConfidence intervalStatisticStatistical inferenceComputer scienceInterval estimationStatistical hypothesis testingMultiple comparisons problemSample size determinationCohen's kappaKappaTest statisticMathematicsEconometricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose adjusted inference procedures for evaluating the agreement/disagreement of two raters in a clustered setting involving twins or paired body parts. These procedures include the construction of a confidence interval for the kappa statistic, a related test of statistical significance and a formula that facilitates sample size estimation. The results of a simulation study suggest that a simple adjustment using an estimated design effect will provide valid inferences. The methods proposed are illustrated using an example from the literature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.634
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.634
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.724
GPT teacher head0.681
Teacher spread0.043 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207