Reliability analysis for continuous measurements: Equivalence test for agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In tandem with the rapid development of medical technology, methods for assessing intrarater and interrater reliability or agreement across tools for continuous measurements have become an increasingly important research topic. Thus far, a number of reliability assessment methods have been proposed. Among them, the limits of agreement and repeatability coefficients were found to be the most useful tools for assessing reliability when measurements are on a continuous scale. However, both are considered as descriptive methods. The concepts of consistency or conformity require an equivalence test without which judgment would be subjective. In this paper we will extend the repeatability coefficient approach and propose an equivalence test that can be used to confirm the agreement between two or more measurement tools or assess interrater and intrarater reliability. Using this approach, a formula to calculate sample size will also be suggested and examples will be provided to illustrate the method.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.218 | 0.558 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".