Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(5)
This model performed better, with a good sensitivity of 74% but a poor specificity of 66%.
The method has a high sensitivity (95%97%%) but a poor specificity (30%–97% depending on the series) [ 17, 18].
The optimal cut-off of galectin-3 in this study was 6.88 ng/mL, which resulted in a reasonable sensitivity of 80% but a poor specificity of 52% [ 43].
In addition, in 80 high-risk patients with an APACHE (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation) II score of greater than 20 undergoing CABG, Dörge et al. [ 57] found that PCT levels greater than 5 ng/ml had a sensitivity of 82% for discrimination of an infectious process but a poor specificity (only 45%).
For all samples, regardless of HPV type, there was a tendency for a slightly higher proportion of samples containing mixed or fully integrated forms in the cases (LG and HG samples) than in the controls (normal samples) as suggested by the OR of 2.6 (95% CI 1.0 – 6.8; p = 0.054) accompanied by a sensitivity of 72% but a poor specificity of 50%.
Similar(55)
At the other extreme, sensitivity was generally high for HapBlock, but this method had a poor specificity thus giving a high number of false positives.
Classic criteria for diagnosis have, however, a poor specificity.
In contrast, other investigators found a poor specificity of oliguria [68, 69].
This is consistent with the good sensitivity of calprotectin, yet this cutoff level has a poor specificity as well, as discussed with the ROC curve (see above).
This led to a poor specificity for DUF1154 (0.3).
In contrast, other investigators found a poor specificity of oliguria [ 68, 69].
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