By far the most sensitive diagnostic tools are serologic tests: sensitivity and specificity of indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) (in-house produced IFAT) are 97.4% and 97.9%, respectively, at a dilution >1/20, and 70.5% and 99.8% at a dilution >1/80 (6 ).
The results show that a trade-off must be made between the tests' sensitivity to noise and how fast they perform.
Understanding the differences among four key measures of evaluation for tests (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value) are necessary for proper utilization of screening tests.
The proposed formulas represent a useful and effective tool for BHE performance predictions: they can be successfully applied to borehole design, thermal response tests, sensitivity analysis, and overall GSHPs performance simulation and optimization.
Concordance of both extraction methods was statistically analyzed by comparing validity measures with binary diagnostic tests (sensitivity and specificity), likelihood ratios, and positive and negative predictive value.
To identify early predictive indicators of different outcome patterns, we used a comprehensive set of diagnostic accuracy tests (sensitivity, specificity, kappa, accuracy, positive and negative predictive likelihood values), as previously recommended [23].
