Statistical Methods in Assessing Agreement
一致性评估的统计方法AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究测量方法与过程的一致性评估,未明确属于给定的经济计量细分领域。
反馈分类问题一致性评估的统计方法AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Measurements of agreement are needed to assess the acceptability of a new or generic process, methodology, and formulation in areas of laboratory performance, instrument or assay validation, method comparisons, statistical process control, goodness of fit, and individual bioequivalence. In all of these areas, one needs measurements that capture a large proportion of data that are within a meaningful boundary from target values. Target values can be considered random (measured with error) or fixed (known), depending on the situation. Various meaningful measures to cope with such diverse and complex situations have become available only in the last decade. These measures often assume that the target values are random. This article reviews the literature and presents methodologies in terms of “coverage probability.” In addition, analytical expressions are introduced for all of the aforementioned measurements when the target values are fixed and when the error structure is homogenous or heterogeneous (proportional to target values). This article compares the asymptotic power of accepting the agreement across all competing methods and discusses the pros and cons of each. Data when the target values are random or fixed are used for illustration. A SAS macro program to compute all of the proposed methods is available for download at http://www.uic.edu/~hedayat/.