The phrase "average specificity of the" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are discussing the level of detail or precision of a particular measurement or characteristic, often in scientific or analytical discussions.
Example: "The average specificity of the test was found to be 95%, indicating a high level of accuracy in identifying the target substance."
Alternatives: "mean specificity of the" or "typical specificity of the".
Hj measured the variability of the distributions of transcripts and δj assessed the average specificity of the genes expressed in the transcriptome.
In four of the five organs studied in dataset B, the average specificity of the genes that were over-expressed in normal tissues was significantly greater than the corresponding value for cancerous tissues, with the exception of the mammary gland (Table S11).
Diversity (Hj) is measured by an adaptation of Shannon's formula for entropy of a transcriptome's frequency distribution, while specialization (δj) is estimated as the average specificity of the genes expressed in each organ [ 44].
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, when we chose the top 25% features from FDAFSA, the average specificity of the prediction was 0.86, and the average specificity for features selected by RTPFSGA using a p-value < 0.000001 was 0.59.
We found the average specificity of this method to be 81% (Supplementary Table S1).
MelaFind had an average specificity of 9.5%, whereas the specificity of the investigators was 3.7%.
On a set of 82 sequence variants, vipR achieved an average sensitivity of 0.80 at an average specificity of 0.92, thus outperforming the reference methods by at least 0.17 in specificity at comparable sensitivity.
In order to assess the drop in specialization of the cancerous tissues, we compared the average specificity of genes that were over-expressed in normal tissues to that in cancerous tissues.
The first is the fraction of gene pairs sharing at least one GO annotation; the second is the average of the deepest level of shared GO annotations for a gene pair; and the third is the average specificity of shared GO annotations for a gene pair.
The comparative study revealed that the average sensitivities of these two algorithms were close, though the average specificity of FDAFSA was higher than that of PromMachine.
And though there was only a slight improvement in PromoBot's average sensitivity over TSSP-TCM (~1%) and PromMachine (~3%), the average specificity of PromoBot was also marginally better than that of PromMachine (~5%) and TSSP-TCM (2%).
