Sentence examples for significantly lower specificity from inspiring English sources

Visual readings, CSBR and indexed CSBR measurements had significantly lower specificity than the 92% specificity of Indexed CAQ (Table 4).

For cartilage lesions, 3D SPACE had significantly lower specificity (p = 0.0156) than the 2D protocol for one reader.

However, 3D SPACE had significantly lower specificity (p = 0.0156) than the routine MR protocol for detecting patellofemoral cartilage lesions for one radiologist (reader 2).

However, we found significantly lower specificity (p = 0.0156) for reader 2 using 3D SPACE compared to 2D sequences for evaluating the patellofemoral compartment [90%% (63/70) and 100%% (70/70), respectively] (Fig. 3).

Furthermore, the comparison of the results of the re-analysis of the images with the original reports (12 true positive, 2 false negative, 30 true negative and 16 false positive) has shown a higher sensitivity (85%) but a significantly lower specificity (65%).

Human papillomavirus testing demonstrated similar sensitivity (96.3%), and NPV (99.1%), but a significantly lower specificity (57.6% P=0.024) for CIN3+.

The disease definition greater than/at least 70%% stenosis compared to greater than/at least 50%% stenosis resulted in significantly lower specificities for SPECT (Table  3; P = 0.045), but no significant differences for ECHO (P = 0.39) and MRI (P = 0.51).

Furthermore, studies conducted in locations other than Germany, Italy, Japan, and the USA demonstrated significantly lower overall specificity compared with that yielded in the four countries where the majority of CTC detection investigations have been performed.

Heterogeneous echogenicity of the thyroid gland significantly lowers the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of US in the differentiation of thyroid nodules.

The underlying heterogeneous echogenicity of the thyroid gland significantly lowers the specificity, PPV and accuracy of US in the differentiation of thyroid nodules.

The specificity of the conventional ELISA (88%) was significantly lower than the specificity of the new peptide-based assay (99.8%; data not shown).