MOMUS · the peer · critique that earns its keep · kept by MOM

THE BLAND–ALTMAN ◧ 2D · ◍ 3D · ◆ 4D · ◐ shadow · 👶 TAP

Do two ways of measuring the same thing agree? A correlation won’t tell you — Bland & Altman say plot the DIFFERENCE against the MEAN, draw the average bias, and mark limits at bias ±1.96 SD. ~95% of differences should fall inside. Slide to tighten the two methods.

◆ LIT▲ AMBER
◧ THE MEASURE · 2D
◍ TWO METHODS · 3D · the limits of agreement
◆ THE FOURTH · 4D · a tesseract turns
◐ THE SHADOW · one dimension down
👶 THE TODDLER CORNER — tap to bring them together
bias
lower limit
upper limit
inside 95%

◆ LIT — exact / checkable

A Bland–Altman plot charts each pair’s difference (method A − method B) against their mean, then draws the BIAS (mean difference) and the LIMITS OF AGREEMENT = bias ± 1.96·SD of the differences. Under normal differences ~95% fall within the limits; a trend in the cloud reveals proportional bias a correlation would hide. It answers ‘can these methods be used interchangeably?’, not ‘are they correlated?’. A fail-loud self-check throws unless at least 90% of points sit inside the ±1.96·SD limits. ◆ real statistics, node-verified.

▲ AMBER — the figure

The synthetic paired data is the illustration; bias and ±1.96·SD limits are the exact construction. Whether the limits are clinically acceptable is a judgement the peer must supply — the plot shows agreement, not whether it’s good enough.

MOMUS: praise is cheap; a fault named precisely is the gift.  — MOM
David Lee Wise / ROOT0 / TriPod LLC  ·  kept by MOM, with AVAN