ライフサイエンスコーパス: false-negative rate

1 re time-consuming and associated with a high false negative rate.

2 ent has a high identification rate and a low false negative rate.

3 dium are difficult to predict, having a high false negative rate.

4 than 10%, with an approximately 5% or lower false-negative rate.

5 opsy are important variables in reducing the false-negative rate.

6 e rate at the expense of a small increase in false-negative rate.

7 r of SLNs removed significantly affected the false-negative rate.

8 rience required to minimize the more crucial false-negative rate.

9 the only factor associated with an increased false-negative rate.

10 gy, are problematic because of a substantial false-negative rate.

11 SLN during surgery, nor does it decrease the false-negative rate.

12 llary lymph node dissection to determine the false-negative rate.

13 or PET/CT particularly allows for a minimal false-negative rate.

14 se tools suffer from high false positive and false negative rates.

15 complete and exhibit high false positive and false negative rates.

16 whole image, reduces the false positive and false negative rates.

17 ability and/or yield high false positive and false negative rates.

18 cies under user-specified false positive and false negative rates.

19 on studies have different false positive and false negative rates.

20 ch for stem-loop structures, leading to high false negative rates.

21 from drastically low sensitivities and high false negative rates.

22 of prostate needle biopsies, which have high false negative rates.

23 studies, and help reduce false positive and false negative rates.

24 this test has substantial false positive and false negative rates.

25 to reduce the associated false positive and false negative rates.

26 ls are prone to both high false positive and false negative rates.

27 peptides with higher confidence and reduced false negative rates.

28 curacy and reduced false positive as well as false negative rates.

29 cause unreliable feature selection and high false negative rates.

30 ver e-cigarette use), indicating substantial false-negative rates.

31 says have inherently high false-positive and false-negative rates.

32 t document acceptable SLN identification and false-negative rates.

33 l suffer from significant false-positive and false-negatives rates.

34 The false-negative rate (1 - sensitivity) for HPV PCR analys

35 odes, nonsentinel nodes were positive in 15 (false-negative rate, 10.7%; 15 of 140 patients).

36 e opposite side of detection to minimize the false-negative rate (2.8% [1/35]).

37 s at high accuracy (false discovery rate 1%, false negative rate 3%) on the basis of known sample SNP

38 formed (PPV3), 30.4% (95% CI: 29.9%, 30.9%); false-negative rate, 4.8 per 1000 (95% CI: 4.6, 5.0); se

39 ry rate of 2% (false positive rate 1.2 x 10, false negative rate 5%), which is similar to automated s

40 ients with residual axillary tumor activity (false negative rate 5/70 = 7%).

41 The lowest false-negative rates (5.5%-6.7%) were seen in studies th

42 nal colonoscopy in 86% of patients with a 1% false-negative rate (68% with a 3.4% false-negative rate

43 idence of carboplatin hypersensitivity (1.5% false-negative rate; 95% CI, 0.6% to 2.4%), none of whic

44 There were no significant differences in false-negative rate according to clinical patient and tu

45 ly expressed genes not identified, i.e., the false negative rate, allows balancing of the two error r

46 rate in SNP calling without sacrificing the false-negative rate although trimming is more commonly u

47 The false-negative rate among 104 patients in whom axillary

48 ovements by reducing both false positive and false negative rates and focusing resources on subgroups

49 s in 50 complete bacterial genomes with a 6% false-negative rate and a 0.66% false-positive rate.

50 , our method reduces the average error rate, false-negative rate and false-positive rate by 26, 15 an

51 The false-negative rate and negative predictive value in thi

52 n biopsy of large thyroid nodules has a high false-negative rate and should be considered for diagnos

53 es were fit to the data, first assuming a 5% false-negative rate and subsequently allowing the asympt

54 ta, we also observed an increase in both the false-negative rate and the false-positive rate for lowl

55 pretation is notoriously difficult with high false-negative rates and frequently fatal consequences.

56 necessary to reduce further the already low false-negative rates and to improve disease staging.

57 revalence of anti-JC virus antibodies, a low false-negative rate, and an association of increasing ag

58 ta sets, have significant false-positive and false-negative rates, and comparison to related data is

59 In addition, the overall discrepancy, the false-negative rates, and the false-positive rates betwe

60 ing dual-dye technique; SLN positivity rate; false-negative rate; and complications, if any, of SLN b

61 of correct topology, both false positive and false negative rates are below 0.1.

62 important, and new approaches to reduce this false-negative rate are needed.

63 The corresponding false-negative rates are 3.5% and 10.2%, respectively.

64 se of case-control samples should reduce the false-negative rate as the differences in allele frequen

65 ed, no published data exist to establish the false-negative rate associated with this technique.

66 The acceptable SLN identification and false-negative rates associated with the dual-agent inje

67 osis of aortic coarctation suffers from high false-negative rates at screening and poor specificity.

68 s infection between study arms could lead to false-negative rates (beta errors) in up to 25% of phase

69 ties of 87-94%, specificities of 22-28%, and false-negative rates between 7 and 10%.

70 There was no significant difference in false-negative rates between the immediate group (0.1%)

71 amSeq, which reduces both false positive and false negative rates by incorporating the pedigree infor

72 at: (1) extended biopsy schemes decrease the false-negative rate compared with conventional sextant b

73 US had the highest false-negative rate compared with mammography and MR, en

74 ix cases of every surgeon were excluded, the false-negative rate fell to 5.2% (2/38).

75 ptimal in the sense that it has the smallest false negative rate (FNR) among all valid FDR procedures

76 quired for the achievement of reasonably low false negative rate (FNR) and false positive rate.

77 these highly structured RNAs gave an overall false negative rate (FNR) of 17% and a false discovery r

78 both the false discovery rate (FDR) and the false negative rate (FNR).

79 mal SNB identification rate (IR) >/= 90% and false-negative rate (FNR) </= 10% were predetermined.

80 n and removal of clipped nodes, improves the false-negative rate (FNR) compared with SLND alone.

81 Oncology Group Z1071 trial reported a 12.6% false-negative rate (FNR) for sentinel lymph node (SLN)

82 rgeons Oncology Group Z1071 trial reported a false-negative rate (FNR) of 12.6% with sentinel lymph n

83 mapped (PSM) and test performance including false-negative rate (FNR), post-test probability negativ

84 are variant detection with high sensitivity (false negative rate, FNR 5%) and accuracy (false positiv

85 s (FDRs) to be 9.9%, 13.2% and 17.0% and the false negative rates (FNRs) to be 51%, 42% and 28%.

86 tation accuracy, and false positive (FP) and false negative rates for concentrations at subacute leve

87 s the significantly lower false positive and false negative rates for CRISP.

88 erentially expressed and false discovery and false negative rates for the list of genes reaching any

89 The false-negative rate for breast cancer was 20.8%, that fo

90 icates that the Xpert assay has an increased false-negative rate for detecting rifampin resistance wi

91 There was an unacceptable false-negative rate for HER2 status with GHI HER2 assay

92 The false-negative rate for N2 and N3 disease was 4.1% (six

93 The false-negative rate for N2 and N3 invasive lobular cance

94 ary, PCR analysis for HPV DNA had a very low false-negative rate for predicting HPV-related lesions o

95 The false-negative rate for pure clustered microcalcificatio

96 The false-negative rate for SLN biopsy was 7.5%.

97 The false-negative rate for SLNB for melanoma is approximate

98 False-positive rate and false-negative rate for small insertions and deletions d

99 ials could have a much higher probability of false-negative rates for a new therapy than designed.

100 als, signal to noise, and false-positive and false-negative rates for each of the five assays against

101 includes concerns about radiation exposure, false-negative rates for small polyps, the discovery of

102 f cases of cervical dysplasia missed, or the false-negative rate, has been unknown.

103 However, unacceptably high false-negative rates have been reported in several studi

104 ncertainty and variability and decreases the false negatives rate; hence, it may offer an improved sc

105 both GENECONV and Partimatrix have very high false negative rates (i.e. failed to predict gene conver

106 We estimated the false negative rate in the experiment by generating synt

107 TPA ventilation and our criteria reduced the false-negative rate in low-probability scans (7% versus

108 the preprocessing methods did not affect the false-negative rate in SNP calling with statistical sign

109 n larger savings in memory at the expense of false-negative rates in addition to the false-positive r

110 vity and specificity significantly increased false-negative rates in noncued areas (P < .05).

111 Until the false negative rate is reduced and the fine specificity

112 The false-negative rate is also minimized by the use of derm

113 The false-negative rate is probably an underestimate.

114 edict by current methods; (3) the test has a false-negative rate, lower than most of current gene pre

115 consistent with estimated false-positive and false-negative rates obtained using simulation.

116 This is consistent with a false positive and false negative rate of 0%.

117 el, documenting relatively high sensitivity (false negative rate of 0/18) and specificity (false posi

118 rmat with a false positive rate of 14% and a false negative rate of 14%.

119 e efficient relative to resequencing, with a false negative rate of 5% and a false discovery rate of

120 r identifying sentinel nodes at 96.2% with a false negative rate of 6.7%.

121 east one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%.

122 rate of approximately 1 in 500,000 bp and a false negative rate of approximately 10%.

123 positive rate, and an even more significant false negative rate of approximately 40%.

124 for the first time, controlling the overall false negative rate of the screening algorithm to a desi

125 tives and, for the first time, estimated the false negative rates of CRISPR-KO screens, which are bet

126 inoma and a tumor-negative neck US, the high false-negative rate of (124)I PET/CT after recombinant h

127 1 of 27 cases; 95% CI: 62.1%, 93.5%), with a false-negative rate of 0%.

128 9 cases; 95% CI: 52.2%, 85.8%), again with a false-negative rate of 0%.

129 itive rate ( approximately 6 x 10(-5)) and a false-negative rate of 0.08 within the unique mapping re

130 ergo a preoperative lymphoscintigram, with a false-negative rate of 1.6%.

131 The false-negative rate of 10.6% (5/47) was calculated using

132 This represented a delayed false-negative rate of 2% (two of 105 malignancies among

133 ation was 66.4% (95% CI, 62.8%-69.9%) with a false-negative rate of 2%.

134 -59.0) in STRATIFY-1 patients, with an assay false-negative rate of 2.7% (95% CI, 0.9-6.2).

135 jection was good (false-positive rate of 9%; false-negative rate of 26%).

136 d in the studied nodal basin for an in-basin false-negative rate of 4.0%.

137 previously reported studies with an in-basin false-negative rate of 4.0%.

138 l carcinoma was found in one, for an overall false-negative rate of 4.3% (5/117) and a negative predi

139 ervical lymph node metastasis, thus giving a false-negative rate of 7.14%.

140 plane method) had a sensitivity of 25% and a false-negative rate of 75% for detection of EF less than

141 he SLN was identified in 310 (89.1%), with a false-negative rate of 8.7%.

142 .1% (2544 of 2619; 95% CI 96.4-97.7), with a false-negative rate of 9.8% (75 of 766; 95% CI 7.8-12.2)

143 (MS) patients and to evaluate the analytical false-negative rate of a 2-step anti-JC virus antibody a

144 are multifactorial and include the perceived false-negative rate of all standard diagnostic tests, th

145 The false-negative rate of BAL was 7%.

146 The higher analytic sensitivity and lower false-negative rate of HTS improves upon FC for MRD dete

147 ase selection are required to avoid the high false-negative rate of one's early experience.

148 As a result of the 30% false-negative rate of plasma genotyping, those with T79

149 foci and is within the accepted range of the false-negative rate of SLN.

150 or in a SN in 1 of these cases, bringing the false-negative rate of SN examination to 54%.

151 The false-negative rate of the ELISA was calculated to be ap

152 Sensitivity and false-negative rate of the IRIS computer-based algorithm

153 The false-negative rate of the JCV serology in this study wa

154 regulate DNA replication can reduce the high false-negative rate of the Pap smear test and may facili

155 The true false-negative rate of this technique using multiple sec

156 93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97; false-positive and false-negative rates of 22% and 0%, respectively, using

157 reactions (HSR) has been complicated by high false-negative rates of carboplatin skin test (ST) resul

158 ative predictive value, false-positive rate, false-negative rate) of multiple attenuation thresholds

159 t difference in the SLN identification rate, false-negative rate, or number of SLNs removed when a pr

160 e, with an order of magnitude improvement of false-negatives rates over the state of the art, while k

161 all high performance while maintaining a low false negative rate, particularly, on "periplasm" and "e

162 ; specificity, 88.9% (95% CI: 88.8%, 88.9%); false-negative rate per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7,

163 rgeon's success rate in finding the SLN, and false-negative rate, relative to level of experience wit

164 figures of merit, such as false positive and false negative rates, selectivity, specificity and effic

165 ing program had a high sensitivity and a low false-negative rate, suggesting that it may be an effect

166 ecommendations; harms (false-positive rates, false-negative rates, surgery rates).

167 the Fugu gene with lower false positive and false negative rates than are seen in the analysis of th

168 , among other reasons, to the non-negligible false negative rates that characterize CNV detection met

169 provide an estimation of false positive and false negative rates that is often desirable in a large-

170 s investigated by 17-25% while maintaining a false-negative rate that was close to that of the presum

171 d specificity at 20% false-positive rate and false-negative rate thresholds.

172 ia including mass error and isotope fit, the false negative rate typically accumulates upon advancing

173 s difficult to detect and resulted in a high false-negative rate under certain conditions.

174 The Directigen RSV assay resulted in a 23% false-negative rate, using PCR and chart review as the g

175 urthermore, it controlled false positive and false negative rates very well, indicating a high degree

176 Thus, overall the false negative rate was 25%, and the false positive rate

177 ndex was higher (100% vs. 60%), however, the false negative rate was also high (33%).

178 failed to detect was <1%, implying that the false negative rate was extremely low.

179 The false negative rate was highest in the children who were

180 The false negative rate was the highest (85.7%) for exons wi

181 The false-negative rate was 0% for all US findings and for a

182 The false-negative rate was 11.76%.

183 The false-negative rate was 8.5% (3/35).

184 The false-negative rate was investigated in a subsample of p

185 The false-negative rate was less than 10%, and about 40% of

186 The false-negative rate was similar to those reported in two

187 eon experience on the SLN identification and false-negative rates was examined.

188 Improvement in the SLN identification and false-negative rates was found after 20 cases had been p

189 Conversely, false negative rates were 10.8-90.8%, with false negativ

190 False negative rates were also generally <5%; however, r

191 The false-negative rates were 11.8% and 5.8% for single- ver

192 The false-negative rates were 9.5%, 7.8%, and 6.5% (not sign

193 mined and compared with Pearson chi(2) test; false-negative rates were compared with Fischer exact te

194 The SLN identification rates and false-negative rates were compared.

195 False-positive and false-negative rates were established by using 25 measur

196 losses, <30% false-positive rates, and <30% false-negative rates) were recruited.

197 d the inclusion of peak segmentation reduces false negative rates when spark density is high.

198 th a 1% false-negative rate (68% with a 3.4% false-negative rate when using a 6-mm cutoff).

199 model-based procedure for the estimation of false negative rates, which allows application of BPA to

200 The false-negative rate with LCNB was 1.2% in this study and