ライフサイエンスコーパス: positive rate

1 t classification, 100% specificity, 4% false positive rate).

2 nteractions at the expense of only 19% false positive rate.

3 in genome-wide scans results in a high false positive rate.

4 without incurring an inflation of the false positive rate.

5 res of a given image with more than 85% true positive rate.

6 across the whole genome for a very low false-positive rate.

7 quality control steps and lowering the false positive rate.

8 ages with a high sensitivity and a low false-positive rate.

9 nce capture assay has an extremely low false-positive rate.

10 he middle of reads, while reducing the false positive rate.

11 n a tissue-specific manner, with a low false positive rate.

12 each motif group and thus control the false positive rate.

13 on sequencing (CLIP-seq) to reduce the false-positive rate.

14 rked cancerous lesions with a very low false-positive rate.

15 process but is associated with a high false positive rate.

16 nes at higher precision and a very low false positive rate.

17 the most powerful test for a specified false-positive rate.

18 vance-93% true positive rate with a 0% false positive rate.

19 es, balancing high sensitivity and low false positive rate.

20 consistency of performance, speed, and false positive rate.

21 g and coalescence times, to reduce the false positive rate.

22 sed true-positive rate and a decreased false-positive rate.

23 nal specific splice junctions at a low false positive rate.

24 an 89% true positive rate, and an 11% false positive rate.

25 it nevertheless tends toward a higher false positive rate.

26 sensitivity as well as good control of false-positive rate.

27 ta adaptive method in order to compare false positive rates.

28 andom models show equilibration with similar positive rates.

29 gn prostatic hyperplasia and have high false positive rates.

30 s, we obtain estimates of the methods' false positive rates.

31 h single-nucleotide resolution and low false-positive rates.

32 e-positive peak and may help to reduce false-positive rates.

33 population structure resulting in high false positive rates.

34 visual inspection and still yield high false-positive rates.

35 r not, and consequently result in high false positive rates.

36 the effect of group size on true- and false-positive rates.

37 e in small alignments and with relaxed false positive rates.

38 sensitivities and maintained moderate false positive rates.

39 he art, while keeping a lower level of false positive rates.

40 method can lead to underestimation of false-positive rates.

41 -the-art methodology while controlling false-positive rates.

42 utational prediction methods have high false positive rates.

43 l false discovery rates and acceptable false-positive rates.

44 ring from limited sensitivity and high false-positive rates.

45 ies, which could have yielded elevated false-positive rates.

46 tion identification and a reduction in false-positive rates.

47 sets of isogenic samples with very low false positive rates.

48 COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423-0.574%).

49 r a return of spontaneous circulation (false-positive rate, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; summary positive

50 voked potentials between days 1 and 7 (false-positive rate, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.07; positive likelih

51 f corneal reflexes more than 24 hours (false-positive rate, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.09; positive likelih

52 -16.08), myoclonic status epilepticus (false-positive rate, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.11; positive likelih

53 vorable electroencephalogram patterns (false-positive rate, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.12; positive likelih

54 e showing extensor posturing or worse (false-positive rate, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.13; positive likelih

55 and elevated neuron-specific enolase (false-positive rate, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06-0.23; positive likelih

56 .04 to 0.09]; false-negative rate, 5%; false-positive rate, 11%).

57 s compared with nonsmokers (interferon-gamma-positive rate, 14.9% versus 28.7%; P < 0.0001) at baseli

58 he specificity was considerably lower (false-positive rate, 18.5%).

59 es (82% and 88%, respectively) and low false-positive rates (19% and 8%).

60 ification clusters, with an acceptable false-positive rate (2.7 per breast view).

61 .04 to 0.11]; false-negative rate, 5%; false-positive rate, 24%).

62 Larger studies (n > 200) had lower DWI-positive rates (29%; 95% CI = 23.2-34.6) than smaller (n

63 ts that the algorithm has a stable low false positive rate (~4%) and high true positive rate (>80%) i

64 rst symmetry and sharpness yielded high true-positive rates (82% and 88%, respectively) and low false

65 n of the compound identity, with a low false positive rate (9%).

66 result, pKWmEB effectively controlled false positive rate, although a less stringent significance cr

67 The groups achieved an increased true-positive rate and a decreased false-positive rate.

68 96% of all stimuli, with less than 5% false positive rate and a ~20ms error in timing.

69 cibility, sensitivity, prioritization, false positive rate and computational time.

70 s performance (i.e. precision, recall, false positive rate and correlation) in comparison with three

71 assays were performed to estimate the false positive rate and demonstrated high confidence of MdCDPM

72 False-positive rate and false-negative rate for small insertio

73 diagnostic performance by reducing the false positive rate and improving the positive predictive valu

74 and show that it has a well-controlled false-positive rate and more power than existing mixed-model m

75 simulations that MOMENT shows a lower false positive rate and more robustness than existing methods.

76 ed tools in terms of Type I error rate, true positive rate and reproducibility.

77 ate in QTN effect estimation, had less false positive rate and required less computing time than Baye

78 Those ascertained for polyps had a 0.8% positive rate and those with no CRC/P had a positive rat

79 Existing methods suffer from high false-positive rates and are unable to effectively differentia

80 High false-positive rates and cost of additional investigations are

81 e use of cfDNA had significantly lower false positive rates and higher positive predictive values for

82 Positive rates and histologic findings of initial and re

83 andom effects meta-analysis to determine DWI positive rates and influencing factors.

84 t have their drawbacks, including high false-positive rates and limited antibody availability, respec

85 me-sequencing data are limited by high false-positive rates and low concordance because of inherent b

86 We assessed false-positive rates and power for parametric and non-parametr

87 Clinicians should be cognizant of false positive rates and seeding point errors as common source

88 This was mainly because of high false positive rates and seeding point errors.

89 tween various methods and compared the false positive rates and statistical power using both simulate

90 nship between methods and compared the false positive rates and statistical power using both simulate

91 There is a trade-off between true-positive rates and the precision of calling DE genes.

92 sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer detection rate [ CDR cancer

93 Screening performance (sensitivity, false-positive rate) and diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence i

94 Sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate) of H

95 ive value to predict poor recovery (0% false-positive rate), and provided equal performance to that o

96 The true-positive rate, false-positive rate, and accuracy (95% confidence intervals) o

97 rms at a 92% accuracy rate, with an 89% true positive rate, and an 11% false positive rate.

98 omy 21 had higher sensitivity, a lower false positive rate, and higher positive predictive value than

99 (defined as <30% fixation losses, <30% false-positive rates, and <30% false-negative rates) were recr

100 Differences in true-positive rates, false-positive rates, and mammographic findings were assessed

101 e constraints can dramatically inflate false positive rates, and often leads researchers to draw swee

102 l proximity with high sensitivity, low false-positive rates, and tunable detection distances.

103 r our benchmark, the true positive and false positive rates are 73% and 29%, respectively).

104 False positive rates are estimated and controlled by permutati

105 res at high sensitivity and with a low false-positive rate, as well as to calculate vertebral bone de

106 h the lowest false positive and highest true positive rate assesses sequence homology, contact number

107 We benchmarked MIPA's false positive rate at less than 1%.

108 loci (FINDOR), correctly controls the false-positive rate at null loci and attains a 9%-38% increase

109 ted that pRSEM has a greatly decreased false-positive rate at the expense of a small increase in fals

110 oposed procedures properly control the false positive rate at the nominal level.

111 ile also maintaining the type I error (false positive) rate at the nominal level.

112 thod was developed for determining the false-positive rate (background) signal.

113 advantages of DISCOVER-seq are (i) low false-positive rates because DNA repair enzyme binding is requ

114 icted poor neurologic outcome with low false-positive rates: bilateral absence of pupillary reflexes

115 VarScan and SNVer had generally lower false positive rates, but also significantly lower sensitivity

116 eity; and an underestimation of actual false positive rate by Benjamini-Hochberg correction.

117 , this bias can decrease the voxelwise false-positive rate by more than 30% in the control group.

118 Sapovirus was also commonly detected (5.7% positive rate) by the FilmArray assay.

119 n rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m, the false-positive rate can be reduced when estimated glomerular f

120 alse-negative rates in addition to the false-positive rates common to all Bloom filter-based approach

121 t, when tuned correctly, decreases the false positive rate compared to conventional tools in a 30 sam

122 sensitivity (recall), but a much lower false positive rate compared to less specific CNV callers, res

123 OL library resulted in uniformly lower false positive rates compared to competing libraries, while al

124 ve high sensitivity with extremely low false-positive rates compared with the well-established method

125 NODES, SAMstrt, Seurat and DESeq2, in false positive rate control and accuracy.

126 However, high false-positive rates, costs, and potential harms highlight the

127 order with respect to the catalyst and has a positive rate dependence on amine concentration.

128 al observations, including recently reported positive rate-dependent IKur-blocking effects on human a

129 The false-positive rate did not differ significantly between group

130 e negatives were computed and only the false positive rates differed significantly, ranging from 3.0%

131 as methods with high precision show low true positive rates due to identifying few DE genes.

132 identification of false detections and false positive rate estimation.

133 variable selection methods, in terms of true positive rate, false discovery rate, mean squared error

134 The true-positive rate, false-positive rate, and accuracy (95% co

135 PSTF screening recommendations; harms (false-positive rates, false-negative rates, surgery rates).

136 Differences in true-positive rates, false-positive rates, and mammographic f

137 ith animals resulted in significantly higher positive rate for anti-mouse IgE antibody test than the

138 olon cancer were similar for all groups, our positive rate for cardiovascular findings exceeds diseas

139 ses (5.6%; 95% CI: 1.0%, 10%), and the false-positive rate for CO-RADS category 5 was one of 286 (0.3

140 lage, with a 91% true-positive and 13% false-positive rate for differentiating Beck score 1 cartilage

141 dian tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated

142 heir incomplete CDS, leading to higher false positive rate for lncRNA identification.

143 rograms tested, and Infernal has a low false-positive rate for non-coding gene detection.

144 It also showed the highest true-positive rate for real data using mixed sequence data of

145 Conclusion Positive rates for large polyps at repeat CT colonograph

146 False positive rates for mortality were less than 5% for epile

147 Test-positive rates for mt-sDNA and for 6-mm- and 10-mm-thres

148 although some variables have very low false positive rates for poor outcome, multimodal assessment p

149 False-positive rates for progression in normal eyes using diff

150 ning-detected breast cancer (SDC), and false-positive rate (FPR) before and after consensus meeting r

151 ratio (DOR), heterogeneity in DOR, and false positive rate (FPR) for each signature using bivariate m

152 ted genes is greatly improved, and the false-positive rate (FPR) for non-causal tissues is well contr

153 y means of next-generation sequencing (False Positive Rate (FPR), 3.5%; R5- or X4 tropic variants occ

154 of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer de

155 based calls of X4 variants (Geno2Pheno false-positive rate [FPR] of </=2%) formed distinct lineages w

156 Tau cutoffs had low false-positive rates (FPRs) for good outcome while retaining h

157 same as those of the LASSO method; the false positive rates (FPRs) of DBN were averagely 46% less tha

158 Sensitivity for fixed false-positive rates (FPRs) was reported for neonatal outcomes

159 unt 1, 2, and 3 isotopes decreases the false positive rate from 22, 2.8 to <0.3%, but the cost of inc

160 NV callers are available, however, the false positive rates from automated calling are commonly high,

161 onal miR-TSVs is difficult due to high false positive rates; functional miRNA recognition sequences c

162 for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ratio [I

163 A, caffeine, NP, OP, and triclosan had false positive rates >15%.

164 low false positive rate (~4%) and high true positive rate (>80%) in simulations with large differenc

165 rination potential with 75.8% and 69.5% true positive rate (i.e., sensitivity) for the training set a

166 , the hit rate or specificity) and the false-positive rate (ie, the false-alarm rate or 1 - sensitivi

167 e intelligence rules, we determined the true-positive rate (ie, the hit rate or specificity) and the

168 The false positive rate in 140 patients with laboratory confirmed

169 False-positive rate in 52 normal controls was 2%.

170 Significant higher eosinophil degranulation positive rate in D2 (P = 0.003) and a trend towards high

171 The pixel prediction false positive rate in healthy plants gets as low as 1.47%.

172 as OR-AC-GAN, and the pixel prediction false positive rate in healthy plants is 1.57%, which is also

173 65 (NCT01916252) trial to determine the uIFE-positive rate in patients who became sIFE-negative postt

174 ng, because it necessitates a very low false-positive rate in read mapping.

175 ffective than trimming in reducing the false-positive rate in single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) ca

176 s pGenTHREADER and HHSearch in terms of True Positive Rate in the difficult task of analogous fold re

177 strategy (DeepBGC) that offers reduced false positive rates in BGC identification and an improved abi

178 tential harms of treatment (ie, higher false-positive rates in low-prevalence populations) as small.

179 ns are anti-conservative and have high false positive rates in some scenarios, although the empirical

180 pecially HHV6, HHV7, and EBV, with different positive rates in various types of LPD.

181 In addition, true positive rate is (0.99%) and false positive is (0.08%).

182 The false-positive rate is approximately 0.033%.

183 mains required, because a considerable false-positive rate is noticed.

184 remnant with 5% false-negative and 1% false-positive rates is less than 1 s.

185 picking methods while maintaining low false-positive rates, is capable of picking challenging unusua

186 easure, which combines sensitivity and false positive rate, Look4TRs outperformed TRF and MISA-the mo

187 ty, from less than 45% up to 94%, at a false positive rate < 11% for a set of 47 experimentally valid

188 e best outlier detection accuracy with false positive rates < 0.05 and high sensitivity, and enetLTS

189 High NSE cutoff values with false positive rates </=5% and tight 95% confidence intervals

190 ity (>90%), but the false-negative and false-positive rates makes the test suboptimal for prevaccinat

191 idation set of 58% (95% CI, 51-65%) at false positive rate of 0% (CI, 0-7%).

192 ved a true-positive rate of 0.91 and a false-positive rate of 0.14.

193 e show a detection rate of 93.6% and a false positive rate of 0.16 per hour (FP/h); furthermore, our

194 ved a true-positive rate of 0.83 and a false-positive rate of 0.17.

195 positive rate and those with no CRC/P had a positive rate of 0.2%.

196 e interval [CI]: 87.0%, 98.9%), with a false-positive rate of 0.29 per patient.

197 th a positive predictive value of 99%, false positive rate of 0.5%, and a sensitivity of 48%.

198 sis as diagnostic algorithm, achieved a true-positive rate of 0.83 and a false-positive rate of 0.17.

199 Groups of 3 individuals achieved a true-positive rate of 0.91 and a false-positive rate of 0.14.

200 findings; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.96), with a false-positive rate of 1.3.

201 alignant electroencephalography had an false positive rate of 1.5% with accuracy of 85.7% (95% CI, 81

202 findings; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.94), with a false-positive rate of 1.6.

203 t for invasive follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate of 10% (IQR, 2 to >99.8%).

204 s were confirmed in 74, representing a false-positive rate of 16%.

205 y of 79% and specificity of 81% with a false-positive rate of 19.4%.

206 nce interval [CI]: 0.68, 0.90), with a false-positive rate of 2.5 findings per patient.

207 findings; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.87), with a false-positive rate of 2.7.

208 gn, or normal findings, resulting in a false-positive rate of 29.6%.

209 n = 2), leading to an overall CrAg LFA false-positive rate of 34%.

210 nd 90 false peak pairs, representing a false positive rate of 4.4%.

211 a sensitivity of 48% (CI, 45-51%) at a false positive rate of 5% (CI, 0-15%) in the external validati

212 At a False Positive Rate of 5%, our method determines true positive

213 with sensitivities of 63% and 58% at a false positive rate of 6% and 7% at 12 and 24 hours, respectiv

214 At 24 hours, sensitivity of 65% with a false positive rate of 6% was obtained.

215 prediction model was established with a true positive rate of 87% and a true negative rate of 71%.

216 f de novo single base mutations with a false-positive rate of about one error per Gb, resulting in fe

217 Our goal was to reduce the false positive rate of CM diagnosis, and so the algorithms wer

218 s (McNemar and chi(2) tests).ResultsThe true-positive rate of DBT was higher than that of DM for dens

219 other available methods in terms of the true positive rate of error discovery without affecting the f

220 We aimed in estimating the positive rate of extraction of CBDS who had treated by e

221 itively correlates with the behavioral false-positive rate of face choices.

222 Because of the high false-positive rate of LDCT, antibiotics should be regarded as

223 prognostic value and could reduce the false-positive rate of LDCT, thus improving the efficacy of lu

224 We formalize how to minimize the false-positive rate of miBFs when classifying sequences from m

225 metagenomic data sets that reduced the false positive rate of plasmid detection compared with the sta

226 that allow a good, albeit at about 14% false positive rate of sepsis diagnosis.

227 proach that envisioned controlling the false-positive rate of study results over many (hypothetical)

228 ess as they all suffered from the high false-positive rate of target prediction results.

229 than PClouds, Augustus has the lowest false-positive rate of the coding gene prediction programs tes

230 The culture-positive rate of the vitreous/aqueous tap was 38% for bo

231 performed to investigate the power and false-positive rate of this procedure, providing recommendatio

232 While most compounds had overall false positive rates of </=5%, bisphenol A, caffeine, NP, OP,

233 positive in Chongqing, but CV-A6 had greater positive rates of 62.33% while CV-A10 had 4.79% in non-E

234 genome sequencing to achieve false and true positive rates of 9.66 x 10(-6) and 68.8%, respectively,

235 itive Rate of 5%, our method determines true positive rates of 97.5%, 95% and 99% on variant calls ob

236 d artificial sequences to evaluate the false-positive rates of a set of programs for detecting inters

237 history of coronary heart disease, the false-positive rates of association tests will be close to nom

238 f enhancers predicted by ENCODE reveal false-positive rates of at least 70%.

239 mary end point was a comparison of the false positive rates of detection of fetal trisomies 21 and 18

240 ference genome are susceptible to high false positive rates of homology detection.

241 based methods is still required due to false-positive rates of prediction algorithms.

242 s negative controls for evaluating the false-positive rates of prediction tools, such as gene identif

243 performance during the game, (2) True/False positive rates of subjects' decisions, and (3) Mutual in

244 We find false positive rates of templated mutagenesis in murine and hu

245 grams, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR false-positive rate (P = .004), and CDR cancer detection rate

246 t yielded significant increases in FPR false-positive rate (P = .011) and CDR cancer detection rate (

247 error discovery without affecting the false positive rate, particularly within the middle of reads.

248 On average, 0.5 false-positive rate per view were microcalcification clusters,

249 interval: 81%, 94%), with 2.7 +/- 1.8 false-positive rate per view, 62 of 72 lesions detected were m

250 a transcriptome does not influence the false positive rate performance of nine widely used DGE tools

251 with a lung carcinoma diagnosis, with a true-positive rate ranging from 3% to 57% for false-positive

252 sitive rate ranging from 3% to 57% for false-positive rates ranging from 0.00001 to 0.001, respective

253 ny work-ups had consistently lower FPR false-positive rate , sensitivity, and CDR cancer detection ra

254 MAP showed a 43% positive rate, sensitivity of 0.9, and specificity of 0.

255 clades were driven by an increased number of positive rate shifts following EFN evolution compared wi

256 value was higher (25.8% vs. 18.2%) and false positive rate significantly lower in the ALARMS ON group

257 proaches, have been suffered from high false positive rates since the NES consensus patterns are quit

258 The high false-positive rate suggests a potential period where physiolo

259 Methods with higher true positive rates tend to show low precision due to their i

260 of SNPs but with a considerably lower false positive rate than other methods.

261 that SQDIA results in a markedly lower false-positive rate than standard DIA: 5 for SQDIA and 82 for

262 t LASSO had the higher power and lower false positive rate than the other three methods.

263 atScout and ReCon and has a much lower false positive rate than WindowMasker.

264 architectures are capable of producing false-positive rates that are orders of magnitude lower than a

265 With a 10% false-positive rate, the genetic score alone detected 19.9% in

266 and is also able to tolerate a higher false-positive rate, thus allowing us to correct errors with a

267 ulted in a five-fold reduction of LDCT false-positive rate to 3.7%.

268 Performance was assessed using the true-positive rate (TPR) and number of false-positive (FP) fi

269 nalysis and compared true positive and false positive rates (TPR/FPR).

270 he sample size was large (n = 340), the true positive rates (TPRs) of DBN (>=98%) were slightly highe

271 cations in mutation carriers, although false-positive rates, unneeded imaging, and unneeded surgeries

272 spect sepsis, yet are low-yield with a false-positive rate up to 50%.

273 se incidence trends produced increased false-positive rates (up to 0.15 at alpha=0.05) under standard

274 ical simulations), while not inflating false-positive rate using a study with biological replicates.

275 %) of vision abnormalities showed high false-positive rates (usually >75%).

276 olonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to 99.8%.

277 The VFs were included if the false-positive rate was <=20% and false-negative rate was <=35

278 eatment and who had uIFE available, the uIFE-positive rate was 0%.

279 ts, the true-negative rate was 100% and true-positive rate was 78% for both scanners.

280 The false positive rate was 79.8 per 1000 screenings.

281 vs 13.4%, P < .0001), and the maternal HBsAg-positive rate was higher (97.1% vs 66.4%, P < .0001).

282 ugh not statistically significant, the false-positive rate was higher in FMM (9.1%) than in FBB (1.8%

283 The aggregate false-positive rate was higher in the 65+ cohort than in the u

284 The false-positive rate was lower for DBT than for DM in all age g

285 False positive rates were 0.06% (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.11) in the

286 The positive rates were 12% (4/33) with egg, 15% (5/34) with

287 OFC-positive rates were 52% (step 1), 35% (step 2), and 20%

288 ERCC1-positive rates were 54.5% and 76.7% in nonsquamous and s

289 nts, respectively, and the corresponding XPF-positive rates were 70.5% and 68.5%.

290 False-positive rates were higher for a Glasgow Coma Scale moto

291 False-positive rates were higher for women with risk factors,

292 Importantly, false-positive rates were not affected by selection bias.

293 Declining (but still positive) rates were projected only for Australasia.

294 s ability to increase power and reduce false positive rate when compared to hypergeometric test.

295 n mate-pair sequencing and reduces the false positive rate while maintaining sensitivity.

296 iring treatment 12 weeks in advance-93% true positive rate with a 0% false positive rate.

297 For trisomies 21 and 18, the false positive rates with cfDNA testing were significantly low

298 invasive cancers, and the reduction in false-positive rates with DBT in prospective trials indicate i

299 Nima(TM) presented a 99.0% true positive rate, with a 95% confidence interval of 97.8%-1

300 positive predictive values (PPVs) and false-positive rates, with a lack of precision in accuracy est