Suggestions(2)
Exact(2)
At a cutoff point of 5, the measure attained a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 74%.
The mitotic index reached no significant level (p = 0.097; rpb = 0.266), but yet attained a sensitivity of 100%%.
Similar(58)
At 90% specificity, INTREPID attains sensitivities of 83.6% on the full MSA and 85.1% on the reduced MSA, while Rate4Site attains a sensitivity of 84.6%.
For example, at a false positive rate (FPR) of 0.05, the tiling array yields a sensitivity of 0.68 while RNA-Seq attains a sensitivity of 0.85.
For example, at 90% specificity, INTREPID attains a sensitivity of 85.03% relative to sensitivities of 70.06% and 73.8% by BCMET and ConSurf, respectively.
Our results show that INTREPID has significantly superior accuracy than each of these methods, attaining a sensitivity of 85% at 90% specificity (in contrast. ET and ConSurf attain sensitivities of 70%and74%4%, respectively at the same specificity) and attaining a recall of about 64% at 10% precision (in contrast neither ET nor ConSurf attain a precision >10%).
Moreover, there was incremental sensitivity when results of Determine TB-LAM and smear microscopy were combined (either test positive), attaining a sensitivity of 72.2% in those with CD4 cell counts <50 cells/μL.
On the Petrova dataset, INTREPID, with a sensitivity of 90.57% at a false positive rate of 13%, is as accurate as their method which attains a sensitivity of 90% at the same false positive rate (i.e. the results are essentially indistinguishable).
When restricted to sequence features alone, their method attains a sensitivity of about 16% at 15% precision and an AUC of 0.866.
Principal component-discriminant function analysis improved the sensitivity and specificity of a three-band Gleason score criterion diagnosis previously reported by attaining an overall sensitivity of 92.3% and specificity of 99.4%.
Comparing manual and automated grading against a reference standard grading of 14,406 images (from 6,722 patients), we found that our automated system attained a higher sensitivity for detection of patients requiring "full disease" grading than the manual graders.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com