Exact(3)
After correction for multiple testing by FDR, the proportion of significant spots estimated to be false positives were 4.1% for a statistical significance level of 0.05 (q = 0.041) and 0.05% for a statistical significance level of 0.0001 (q = 0.0005).
354 hairpins were reported by miRDeep passing the cut-off score of -3, of which 140 were estimated to be false positives, representing a signal to noise ratio of 2.5.
The sensitivity of this method can also lead to several problems: (i) transformation efficiency affects signal strength and is highly dependent on technique [ 3], (ii) 25%to50%0% of detected interactions are estimated to be false positives [ 2, 4, 5], and (iii) 55%to90%0% of true protein interactions are not observed (false negatives) [ 2, 5].
Similar(57)
The lowest score for the experimentally defined promoters was 4.2; however, at this threshold, about half of the sequences identified were estimated to be false-positives.
Indeed, the sensitivity of genetic testing has been estimated to be at least 85%, with false negatives including mutations of as yet unidentified cancer genes [ 26].
Based on analysis of NotI digested DNA isolated from 131 clones, the average insert size of the CHORI-231 BAC library [ 23] was estimated to be 170 kb with approximately 3% false positive (noninsert) clones.
Both false positive and false negative rates are estimated to be below 0.1 when a C-score >−1.5 is displayed (Zhang, 2008 ).
The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 3, with false discovery rates estimated to be <0.2%.
The specificity of the HPV test (probability of a negative test for women without HPV infections) is assumed to be 100%, and the specificity of cytology (probability of a negative test for women without CIN or cancer) is estimated to be 98.5%, based on the observed false-positive rate of Pap smears in the Dutch screening programme.
The protein false positive rate was estimated to be 1.47%.
The false discovery rate was estimated to be <1% at the mass spectrum level and <2% at the peptide level.
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