MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790635366 · doi:10.1177/0962280218759693

MethodCompare: An R package to assess bias and precision in method comparison studies

2018· article· en· W2790635366 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsR packageStatisticsComputer scienceEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bland and Altman's limits of agreement have been used in many clinical research settings to assess agreement between two methods of measuring a quantitative trait. However, when the variances of the measurement errors of the two methods are different, limits of agreement can be misleading. MethodCompare is an R package that implements a new statistical methodology, developed by Taffé in 2016. MethodCompare produces three new plots, the "bias plot", the "precision plot", and the "comparison plot" to visually evaluate the performance of the new measurement method against the reference method. The method is illustrated on three simulated examples. Note that the Taffé method assumes that there are several measurements from reference standard and possibly as few as one measurement from the new method for each individual.

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.

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)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.634
GPT teacher head0.710
Teacher spread0.076 · 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