Comparing these results with the measured sensitivities and specificities in Table 3, we see that the largest differences occur for FISH where sensitivity increases to 47.7%% (31.5 63.3 %) from 40.0 % (22.7 52.3 %) in Table 3, and for Cxbladder Detect where sensitivity decreases to 73.6 % (65.1 81.7 %) from 79.5 % (71.1 82.8 %) in Table 3.
We plotted the ROC curve of the DAS28 in Fig. 3 and listed sensitivities and specificities in Table 4. Also, predictive values and the accuracies of classification in function of the different DAS28 cut-offs are shown in Table 4. Beneath a cut-off of 3.2, we found a high predictive value for continuing the current dose as a measure of good response.
This data set contains the individual T m values for the specificity testing of the vaginal/skin, blood/menstrual and saliva/semen HRM duplex assay specificity presented in Table 2. Individual donors are listed according to body fluid or tissue type with the T m values (°C) recorded under each biomarker.
In total, these findings validate our fibril specificity data in Table 1 and demonstrate that scFv-6E is specific for a conformational epitope typical of insoluble amyloid-like aggregates but not soluble species of mutant protein.
However, the superior early recognition performance did not come at the cost of missing many true interactions later on, as indicated by the higher sensitivity and specificity values in Table 2.
To assign probability distributions to the classification parameters, we examined each column of sensitivity and specificity data in Table 1 for cases and noncases separately.
All the specific oligonucleotide probes contained a N- trifluoroacetamidohexyl-cyanoethyl, N- trifluoroacetamidohexyl-cyanoethyl])-C6 amiN- trifluoroacetamidohexyl-cyanoethyl0 pmol/150 μl iN 500 mM NaHCO3 (pH 8.4) to provide optimal sensitivity and sphosphoramiditemarized in Table 4).
Selected levels for sensitivity, specificity (presented in table 1) and other statistics were based on realistic values for each method of preparation using the existing literature 4 27–34 as well as expert radiologists' opinions.
The suspicion that many claims of extreme host specificity in epiphytes (Table 2) are sampling artefacts, or are only applicable to particular sites, is supported by a number of observations.
f We would not necessarily expect the behavior of polymerases at the early checkpoints to account fully for the error specificities reported in Table 6.
