Sentence examples for significantly better sensitivity from inspiring English sources

Assessments across reconstruction methods showed significantly better sensitivity in calibrated ACSC reconstructed data (90.7%) than both IRNC at 76.7% and FBP at 67.4% (p = 0.03 and 0.002, respectively).

The AMO-MIP QCM sensor showed a significantly better sensitivity and affinity than the reference film displaying more than seven times relative adsorption capacity and a limit of detection down to 0.2 nM.

The diagnostic accuracy of [TIMP 2]*[IGFBP7] on day one after surgery for the prediction of AKI 2/3 was significantly better (sensitivity 0.89, specificity 0.81, AUC 0.817, 95 % CI 0.622 1.0 SE 0.099, p = 0.022, cut-off 0.817) than for serum creatinine (AUC 0.359, sensitivity 0.50, specificity of 0.52, cut-off value 1.17 mg/dl) and eGFR.

No combination of markers provided a significantly better sensitivity at 98% specificity than the best individual marker, MUC16, in distinguishing all ovarian cancers or serous ovarian cancers from controls.

Remarkably, average GCIPL showed a significantly better sensitivity than temporal pRNFL by Cirrus, and minimum GCIPL showed a significantly better sensitivity than temporal pRNFL by Spectralis for the detection of retinal thickness changes in RRMS.

IFN-γ is an excellent rule-in test and, compared to ADA, has significantly better sensitivity and rule-out value in a TB-endemic setting.

In contrast, two other studies failed to demonstrate significantly better sensitivities with the T-SPOT.TB test than with the QFT: 47% vs. 40%, respectively, using an older generation of QFT in a Taiwanese study [ 30], or 22% vs. 46%, respectively, in 62 Swiss patients deemed to have LTBI [ 33].

However, compared to all other individual predictors, CPORT was significantly better in sensitivity (p = 0.0001 0.02, Fisher exact test), and better in specificity than all methods except ProMate (p = 0.00064 0.041; CPORT vs ProMate, p = 0.119).

By design, the newly developed in vivo network iNJ661v provided significantly better agreement (sensitivity increased from 0.31-0.44 to 0.81-0.86; Table 1) between predicted and experimental in vivo gene essentiality.

Previous studies have shown that microarrays with longer oligonucleotides (60 80 mer) provide significantly better detection sensitivity than those with shorter oligonucleotides (e.g. 25 or 30 mer) [ 26, 27, 45].

Therefore, our interpretations of these data is that CW data has significantly better relative sensitivity compared to EP data as well as any HDS data mix that includes some fraction of EP data.