For the medium searching criterion, we use less constraints than the high quality criterion.
Classification Stringency was set as "Medium", using criteria p < 0.05, FDR < 0.05.
In the case of CHAT validity, the high-risk + medium-risk criterion improved sensitivity considerably (from 0.18 to 0.48) while keeping specificity high, i.e. 0.99 for the high-risk criterion and 0.87 for the high-risk + medium-risk criterion.
When combined with ensemble sampling, five of the 10 lowest-energy models meet the CAPRI medium-quality criterion of correctly predicting more than 50% residue−residue contacts.
A final assessment sorted studies into one of three categories on the basis of quality: high quality (those meeting 10 or more criteria), medium quality (those meeting between seven and nine criteria), and low quality (those meeting fewer than seven criteria).
During pre-assembly, sequencing ends were trimmed using a medium-stringency criteria, with the following SeqMan parameters: average quality score Q/n threshold of 12, a non-trace window size of 50, and a maximum of 2 Ns.
Studies were scored as either "good" if they met all of the quality criteria, "medium" if they did not meet all of the criteria, but had no serious flaws, and "poor" if they met none of the criteria, or if 50% or more of the study population failed to be included or followed up.
A patient is regarded as in low risk if less than two criteria are met, medium risk if two criteria are met and at high risk if three or more criteria are met.
A final assessment sorted studies into one of three categories on the basis of quality: high quality (those meeting 12 or more criteria), medium quality (those meeting nine or ten or more), and low quality (those meeting fewer than nine criteria).
