Comparing heteroscedastic measurement systems with the probability of agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deciding whether two measurement systems agree well enough to be used interchangeably is important in medical and clinical contexts. Recently, the probability of agreement was proposed as an alternative to comparison techniques such as correlation, regression, and the limits of agreement approach, when the systems' measurement errors are homoscedastic. However, in medical and clinical contexts, it is common for measurement variability to increase proportionally with the magnitude of measurement. In this article, we extend the probability of agreement analysis to accommodate heteroscedastic measurement errors, demonstrating the versatility of this simple metric. We illustrate its use with two examples: one involving the comparison of blood pressure measurement devices, and the other involving the comparison of serum cholesterol assays.
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 | 0.207 | 0.540 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".