ライフサイエンスコーパス: blind test

1 racy of 87.74%, by cross-validation test and blind test.

2 e been assessed from the outcome of a set of blind tests.

3 very well with manual expert validation in a blinded test.

4 showed higher accuracy than those reporting blind testing.

5 where the method was evaluated by stringent blind testing.

6 s were distributed to 15 research groups for blinded testing.

7 he specificity of the sensor was examined by blind testing a panel of food-contaminating pathogens (L

8 The results of blind-testing a panel of nine disorder prediction tools

9 of the learning features, an SdA achieved a blind test accuracy of 89.7% for GM12878 and 88.6% for K

10 esh momentum thanks to recent community-wide blind tests aimed at benchmarking available tools on a g

11 ation and replication by another laboratory, blind testing, amelogenin sex versus morphological sex,

12 "Blind testing" analysis of coprolites by an independent

13 Blinded testing and analysis in a prospectively followed

14 Studies not reporting blind testing are likely to overestimate accuracy of PCR

15 Both groups underwent assessor-blinded testing at ICU and hospital discharge and at 2,

16 he top few for EMA, according to independent blind testing by the CASP12 assessors.

17 We then applied this model to a blinded test cohort, including 37 lung tumours and six n

18 fectly classified samples in the independent blinded test cohort.

19 cificity (86.67%) and accuracy (92.00%) in a blind test, comparable to the gold standard of the blood

20 min of experimental values for 12 out of 15 blind test compounds (largest error: 0.97 min).

21 the 73 features is further demonstrated in a blind test conducted on an independent test data.

22 The blind test consisting of 95 CASP10 targets shows that do

23 e present reproducible results obtained from blind tests controlled by the Defense Advanced Research

24 On blind test data, it achieves nearly perfect precision an

25 These fully double-blinded tests document a reproducible effect of anthropo

26 ady witnessed in other areas, community-wide blind testing experiments will be pivotal in establishin

27 The assay was evaluated with 110 blind-tested field isolates; when the code was broken th

28 benchmarks for fold recognition, and CASP 9 blind test for structure prediction.

29 new set of 10 conformations, (Set-bt), as a blind test for the same protein.

30 In a blinded test for 19 TMB proteins of known structure that

31 several amino acid specificity changes from blind tests in the DREAM4 peptide recognition domain spe

32 A blind test of 40 samples showed no errors in classificat

33 We report here a multiprotein blind test of a computer method to predict native protei

34 ,4-dione submitted in the 2001 international blind test of crystal structure prediction (CSP2001) led

35 A rigorous double-blind test of our method was made under the auspices of

36 The procedure was assessed in a recent blind test of protein structure prediction (CASP4).

37 teins in large families in the recent CASP11 blind test of protein structure prediction methods by in

38 nomers in length, in CASP7, a community-wide blind test of protein structure prediction.

39 In a blind test of unrelated proteins, our scoring function m

40 The clinical performance was established by blind testing of 328 nasal/throat and nasopharyngeal swa

41 The procedure was assessed in two recent blind tests of protein-structure prediction.

42 In a blinded test of 209 verified C. diphtheriae isolates, a

43 assessment algorithm was evaluated through a blinded test of 32 study valves for which the true statu

44 confirms flagellar antigen "d," "a," or "b." Blinded testing of 664 Malian and Chilean Salmonella blo

45 ique opportunity to undertake comprehensive 'blind testing' of many diverse approaches for automated

46 ography (helix error rates, 2%), including a blind test on a double-glycine riboswitch.

47 h traditional cross-validated accuracies and blind-tested on a dataset of G Switch proteins, obtainin

48 In the testing stage, we performed blinded testing on a previously unexamined set of sample

49 We evaluate prediction performance in blinded tests on 76 complexes of known 3D structure, pre

50 f up to 0.70 on cross-validation and 0.68 on blind-tests, outperforming its previous version.

51 on 103 of the reverse transcriptase) using a blinded test panel containing mutant-wild-type mixtures

52 These were blind tests performed prospectively on 13 diverse, previ

53 0.86 on 10-fold cross validation and 0.80 in blind tests, performing as well as or better than other

54 tein panels correctly diagnosed 41 of the 44 blinded test samples: 21 of 22 malignant ovarian neoplas

55 The results from a blind test screening 111 clinical isolates revealed that

56 ent-resistant depression in a randomized and blinded testing session at Emory University.

57 Predictive power was confirmed in a blind test set of 60 samples, reaching 100% diagnostic a

58 ime point were used to make predictions on a blind test set of widely varying molecules, some discove

59 qual to 98.2%; the analysis of a 48 proteins blind-test set, i.e. containing proteins not used to gen

60 When tested on a blinded test set of 47 independent samples, the classifi

61 sly published dataset and tested it in a new blinded test set to reach an overall 74% accuracy in cla

62 A blinded test set, separated from the training set by a s

63 molecules or through performance shown on a blinded test set.

64 hieved 90% sensitivity and specificity for a blinded test set.

65 ed of a training set that was validated on a blinded test set.

66 (FDR): 10%) were then validated in a second blinded "test" set of 16 CRC patients from whom cancer a

67 ge predicted errors for the verification and blind test sets were 0.03 +/- 0.02 L d(-1) (RTD-model) a

68 Model "blind" tests show more than 95% of predictions within a

69 In this study, 10 renowned soloists each blind-tested six Old Italian violins (including five by

70 rom these data, we were able to predict in a blind test the strain identity of individual animals wit

71 A blind test was conducted to validate the lower detection

72 Finally, a blinded test was performed on saliva samples from 40 pat

73 In a blind test, we examined whether alchemical free-energy c

74 During the first blind test, we predicted large fragments of alpha and al

75 Blind tests were conducted wherein 2 of the 10 gasoline

76 A blind test with 50 metals further confirmed the discrimi

77 rmat (limit of detection of 3.0ng/ml), and a blind test with six random extracts of local house furni

78 ity profiles for multiple unknown samples in blinded tests within approximately 6.5 h.