The phrase "alarm sensitivity" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the responsiveness or threshold level of an alarm system to detect certain conditions or events.
Example: "The alarm sensitivity can be adjusted to minimize false alarms while still ensuring that genuine threats are detected."
Alternatives: "alarm responsiveness" or "alarm threshold level".
The metrics considered to address the performance are the probability of detection and false alarm (sensitivity and specificity) of PCA-ICA and PCA itself.
Furthermore, low positive predictive values for device alarms are common and generally accepted as necessary to gain sufficient alarm sensitivity [ 19].
The psychology literature demonstrates that as work increases and alarm sensitivity declines, 90% of individuals will produce progressively lower-quality work and their responsiveness to alarms will decline [ 32, 33].
Such a finding is not surprising given work psychology research that suggests that the vast majority of individuals will ignore alarms as work volume increases or as alarms sensitivity decreases [ 20, 21].
The proposed alarming strategy is able to achieve a balance between alarming accuracy and alarming sensitivity.
Our results show that the new method can identify events with high sensitivity and a low false alarm rate, with tests on both simulated data and experimental data.
Hit rate, false alarm rate, sensitivity, and response bias are summarized in Table 2.
Consideration of the epidemiology of the conditions under surveillance, public health priorities and response capacities are required to determine the relative importance of false alarm rate, sensitivity and timeliness for each particular surveillance application.
The most serious problem encountered with these alarms was that although they provided PPVs (relevant alarms/all alarms), their sensitivity and specificity cannot be ascertained.
However polynomial linear within-subject contrasts revealed substantial 2 way interaction of genotype by block for False Alarms and Sensitivity (p = 0.014 and 0.038 respectively).
The effect of genotype remained significant both for False Alarms and Sensitivity; when excluding participants with a BPRS>27 we obtain empirical p-values of 0.0018 and 0.0004 for False Alarms and Sensitivity and the respective p-values when using BPRS as a covariate were 0.0021 and 0.0008.
