Sentence examples for agreement for measuring from inspiring English sources

Inter-modality agreement for measuring optic disc parameters was good [Average kappa coefficient for vertical Cup/Disc ratio was 0.78 (95% CI 0.62 0.91) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.6 0.92) for observer 1 and 2 respectively].

Studies have generally found that there is good interobserver agreement and good agreement between methods for measuring UIP [ 5, 10].

That task force met April 30 and almost unanimously recommended the board reject any overarching labor agreement for Measure M — with possible exceptions at Chancellor Andrew Jones' recommendation — according to board documents.

Interobserver and interoccasion agreement for measures of skeletal muscle adiposity based on a standard CT image were excellent, with narrower limits of agreement than those reported during measurement of rectus femoris cross-sectional area with ultrasound [ 48].

Data shown in the Bland-Altman plot corroborates these findings, describing an agreement for measures above 0.5 and higher values for Brazilian measure when the score is below this cut-off (Fig.  3).

Experience from the USA shows that collaborative efforts among different groups of interested actors have been needed to develop an agreement about core indicators for measuring sustainability.

As elaborated by Lin (1989, Biometrics 45, 255-268), the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) is more appropriate than other indices for measuring agreement when the variable of interest is continuous.

Pearson correlation coefficient is inappropriate for measuring agreement between two methods because it estimates the degree of linear association while ignoring systematic bias.

However, it has long been recognized that application of procedures such as the paired t-test and Pearson's correlation are not appropriate tools for measuring agreement between measuring devices [ 19, 20].

The kappa statistic for measuring agreement between the two reviewers in assessing the STARD items addressed in each study was 0.82 for the Mayo study, 0.65 for the NIH study, 0.60 for the Vienna study.

The kappa coefficient for measuring agreement between observers concerning the presence of the "significance fallacy" was 0.78 (CI95%: 0.62 to 0.93), which is considered acceptable in the scale of Landis and Koch [ 41].