Exact(4)
Finally, the peptide ABZ-Tyr-Tyr-Abu-ANB-NH2 displayed the highest value of specificity constant (kcat/KM = 189 × 103 M−1 s−1) for proteinase 3. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first short peptide that undergoes selective proteolysis by proteinase 3 and displays no significant hydrolysis in the presence of human neutrophil elastase and cathepsin G.
The highest value of specificity constant for proteinase 3 was obtained for the single peptide with Gln in the discussed position (kcat/KM = 275,000 M−1 s−1), which was nearly twice as active as the reference compound (lacking a substituent in the X position).
In the Figure, MCSE has the highest value of specificity and F-score in the eight algorithms for each overlapping score's threshold.
FDG-PET had the highest value of specificity (93.4%, 71/76), however, it had the lowest value of sensitivity (33.3%, 2/6).
Similar(56)
Figure 5 shows MCSE also has the highest values of specificity and F-score.
The normalization methods with the highest values of specificity better show nondifferentially expressed genes, while on the other hand, the methods with the highest sensitivity values indicate a high probability of finding DEGs that are truly DEGs.
Interestingly, two recent studies confirmed a high sensitivity of CESM (94 95 %) with higher values of specificity: 81%% in the symptomatic setting [35] and 74 % in the post-screening assessment [36].
All imaging modalities had higher values of specificity and PPV than those of sensitivity and NPV.
We show that CODEC outperforms these approaches on two large-scale datasets, attaining higher values of specificity and sensitivity.
Since the ratio of catalytic to non-catalytic residues is low, even apparently high values of specificity can correspond to a large number of false positives.
Notably, Figure 5 shows MCSE has much higher values of specificity and F-score when compared with the algorithms cannot identify hierarchical complexes.
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