Sentence examples for mean specificity for from inspiring English sources

The mean specificity for RA prediction was 94% (range 80%to100%0%), that for OA 96% (range 83.3% to 100%).

The meta-analysis by Mitchell et al. also reported a mean specificity for colposcopy of 48%, and this figure was used in the model [ 117].

The actual mean specificity for one model at each desired input specificity was determined by running the model on the historical data set.

The mean specificity for MRI-visible nerve involvement to the absence of physical examination and/or pain drawing findings of nerve involvement at any location in segments T11-S1 ranged from 85-92%.

We found that although the mean CNVs detection sensitivity and specificity for the SCRS data from MDA was lower than those of DOP-PCR and MALBAC, the mean CNVs detection mean sensitivity and mean specificity for the SCRS data from MDA-2 were 78.91 % and 76.47 %, respectively, and one specific MDA-2 cell (cell MDA-2_66) even reached 93.84 % and 96.13 %, respectively.

The specificity model consisted of the mean specificities for each of mammography and MRI; mean specificity of mammography was for women younger (or older) than 40 years of age (Kriege et al, 2006) and mean MRI specificity was an overall specificity that was independent of age (Warner et al, 2008).

After excluding results from that outlying study, they reported a mean specificity of 98% (92-100%) for direct smear and 98% (91-100%) for concentrated smears.

For example, at a mean specificity of 85percentt, corresponding to approximately one false alarm each week, the autoregressive, Serfling, trimmed seasonal and wavelet models had highest specificity in June and July and low specificity during the winter months.

We found that a strong pooled mean sensitivity of 90%[95%% confidence interval (CI), 84-94] and a weaker pooled mean specificity of 82% (95% CI, 70-90) for motor-evoked potential (MEP) recording changes.

The algorithm for detecting mobility activities attained a mean specificity of 89.2% and sensitivity of 87.2% over the four activities; the algorithm for quantifying the number of personnel involved attained a mean accuracy of 68.8%.

The mean specificity score for participants in each condition and the descriptive statistics for participants' responses to the AMT are shown in Table 1.