Is Bland-Altman plot method useful without inference for accuracy, precision, and agreement?

P. S. P. Silveira; J. E. Vieira; J. O. Siqueira

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2108.12937

Is Bland-Altman plot method useful without inference for accuracy, precision, and agreement?

P. S. P. Silveira·J. E. Vieira·J. O. Siqueira

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Objective: Bland and Altman plot method is a widely cited and applied graphical approach for assessing the equivalence of quantitative measurement techniques, usually aiming to replace a traditional technique with a new, less invasive, or less expensive one. Although easy to communicate, Bland and Altman plot is often misinterpreted by lacking suitable inferential statistical support. Usual alternatives, such as Pearson's correlation or ordinal least-square linear regression, also fail to locate the weakness of each measurement technique. Method: Here, inferential statistics support for equivalence between measurement techniques is proposed in three nested tests based on structural regressions to assess the equivalence of structural means (accuracy), the equivalence of structural variances (precision), and concordance with the structural bisector line (agreement in measurements obtained from the same subject), by analytical methods and robust approach by bootstrapping. Graphical outputs are also implemented to follow Bland and Altman's principles for easy communication. Results: The performance of this method is shown and confronted with five data sets from previously published articles that applied Bland and Altman's method. One case demonstrated strict equivalence, three cases showed partial equivalence, and one showed poor equivalence. The developed R package containing open codes and data are available with installation instructions for free distribution at Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH. It is possible to test whether two techniques may have full equivalence, preserving graphical communication according to Bland and Altman's principles, but adding robust and suitable inferential statistics. Decomposing the equivalence in accuracy, precision, and agreement helps the location of the source of the problem in order to fix a new technique.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

P. S. P. Silveira, J. E. Vieira, J. O. Siqueira. 2021-08-30. Is Bland-Altman plot method useful without inference for accuracy, precision, and agreement?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12937

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗