By contrast, the expectation-variance model specificity was constant as a function of the study year, study month, and the day of the week.
Nevertheless, a rough estimation of model specificity was indirectly and tentatively estimated by further independent techniques (i.e., chemical and histological examinations) described in the Materials and methods section.
In typical PL models, this specificity is interpreted as an indicator of the retinotopic early visual cortical locus of learning, where different orientations are processed separately [ 2– 4].
Furthermore, the proportion of men who died in each of the groups (Additional file 1: Table S1) showed a modest decrease in sensitivity of the PSA-gene model compared to the PSA-Gleason model; however, specificity was similar, thus prompting future efforts to assessment of DNA methylation in body fluids.
Finally, the sensitivity is the percentage of cases that had the observed characteristic (eutrophic or noneutrophic) which were correctly predicted by the model, and the specificity is the percentage of cases that did not have the observed characteristic and were also correctly predicted as not having the observed characteristic (eutrophic or noneutrophic).
This suggests that the sensitivity of the Fisher methods is similar to the SNVMix family of models, but the specificity is lower.
For the male classification model, the specificity was 90.3% and the bootstrapped sensitivity was 51.0%.
For the female classification model, the specificity was 90.0% and the sensitivity was 37.1%.
As in the murine model, H4R specificity was established by gene silencing that abolished most of the anti-proliferative effect of CB on CD34+ cells stimulated with growth factor cocktail (Fig. 6D).
The model for specificity was more complex.
