ライフサイエンスコーパス: false-positive rate

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

2 ampling and coalescence times, to reduce the false positive rate.

3 personal specific splice junctions at a low false positive rate.

4 , with an 89% true positive rate, and an 11% false positive rate.

5 s, but it nevertheless tends toward a higher false positive rate.

6 egression in terms of power of detection and false positive rate.

7 state-specific antigen (PSA) test has a high false positive rate.

8 sequencing data, but also has a much higher false positive rate.

9 on novel variants had a significantly higher false positive rate.

10 may result in loss of power and/or inflated false positive rate.

11 tein interactions at the expense of only 19% false positive rate.

12 in cancer and normal samples to control the false positive rate.

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

14 reasonably low false negative rate (FNR) and false positive rate.

15 dding quality control steps and lowering the false positive rate.

16 thin the middle of reads, while reducing the false positive rate.

17 ipts in a tissue-specific manner, with a low false positive rate.

18 ds for each motif group and thus control the false positive rate.

19 edious process but is associated with a high false positive rate.

20 ion genes at higher precision and a very low false positive rate.

21 in advance-93% true positive rate with a 0% false positive rate.

22 eats, consistency of performance, speed, and false positive rate.

23 increased true-positive rate and a decreased false-positive rate.

24 so proposed a list of filters to control the false-positive rate.

25 onella LPS or flagellum, resulting in a high false-positive rate.

26 specificity, moderate sensitivity and a low false-positive rate.

27 of subjects, suggesting an unacceptably high false-positive rate.

28 es with a 6% false-negative rate and a 0.66% false-positive rate.

29 s additional variance to avoid inflating the false-positive rate.

30 tioning strategy, with a properly controlled false-positive rate.

31 digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate.

32 ow-ups with OPR greater than the anticipated false-positive rate.

33 in macaque to 18.96% in rat, including a 5% false-positive rate.

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

35 CT images with a high sensitivity and a low false-positive rate.

36 sequence capture assay has an extremely low false-positive rate.

37 pitation sequencing (CLIP-seq) to reduce the false-positive rate.

38 ar3 marked cancerous lesions with a very low false-positive rate.

39 nd is the most powerful test for a specified false-positive rate.

40 ns in sets of isogenic samples with very low false positive rates.

41 h high sensitivities and maintained moderate false positive rates.

42 e of the art, while keeping a lower level of false positive rates.

43 t computational prediction methods have high false positive rates.

44 gorithms with high statistical power and low false positive rates.

45 to inaccuracy due to high false negative and false positive rates.

46 c markers, thus enabling better control over false positive rates.

47 the data adaptive method in order to compare false positive rates.

48 m benign prostatic hyperplasia and have high false positive rates.

49 ts of population structure resulting in high false positive rates.

50 onal or not, and consequently result in high false positive rates.

51 etitive in small alignments and with relaxed false positive rates.

52 s last method can lead to underestimation of false-positive rates.

53 d small false discovery rates and acceptable false-positive rates.

54 entalist to have causal predictions with low false-positive rates.

55 cardiac pathology is essential to avoid high false-positive rates.

56 noted, even among radiologists with similar false-positive rates.

57 detection, but it is associated with higher false-positive rates.

58 matched control group was used to assess CAD false-positive rates.

59 a false-positive peak and may help to reduce false-positive rates.

60 tical visual inspection and still yield high false-positive rates.

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

62 s after a return of spontaneous circulation (false-positive rate, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; summary po

63 sory-evoked potentials between days 1 and 7 (false-positive rate, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.07; positive l

64 ence of corneal reflexes more than 24 hours (false-positive rate, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.09; positive l

65 , 4.87-16.08), myoclonic status epilepticus (false-positive rate, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.11; positive l

66 , unfavorable electroencephalogram patterns (false-positive rate, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.12; positive l

67 r score showing extensor posturing or worse (false-positive rate, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.13; positive l

68 2.16), and elevated neuron-specific enolase (false-positive rate, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06-0.23; positive l

69 , 93.3% intergrader agreement) and accurate (false-positive rate, 0.8%) for detecting individual earl

70 g, we achieved a false discovery rate of 2% (false positive rate 1.2 x 10, false negative rate 5%), w

71 on," the specificity was considerably lower (false-positive rate, 18.5%).

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

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

74 ld be 3 to 4 percentage points higher with a false-positive rate 30 times greater if women with faile

75 overestimated the amount of PR when RF<20% (false-positive rate 36%; 95% CI: 18-57%).

76 s follows: recall rate, 9.3% and 6.3%-13.2%; false-positive rate, 8.9% and 5.9%-12.8%; sensitivity, 8

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

78 galovirus infection between arms would cause false-positive rates (alpha errors) in up to 5% of phase

79 As a result, pKWmEB effectively controlled false positive rate, although a less stringent significa

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

81 accurate in QTN effect estimation, had less false positive rate and required less computing time tha

82 e that serologic testing for HTLV has a high false positive rate and that there was a short follow-up

83 ith the use of cfDNA had significantly lower false positive rates and higher positive predictive valu

84 to its better control of false negative and false positive rates and its ability to quantify RNAi ef

85 hip between various methods and compared the false positive rates and statistical power using both si

86 elationship between methods and compared the false positive rates and statistical power using both si

87 False-positive rate and false-negative rate for small in

88 with >90% sensitivity and specificity at 20% false-positive rate and false-negative rate thresholds.

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

90 High false-positive rates and cost of additional investigatio

91 nomics has consistently been plagued by high false-positive rates and divergent predictions.

92 DELISHUS achieves significantly lower false-positive rates and higher power than previously pu

93 We assessed false-positive rates and power for parametric and non-pa

94 ave generally had limited success, with high false-positive rates and subtle phenotypic differences t

95 aphy (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer detection rate [ CDR c

96 Screening performance (sensitivity, false-positive rate) and diagnostic accuracy (95% confid

97 redictive value to predict poor recovery (0% false-positive rate), and provided equal performance to

98 r trisomy 21 had higher sensitivity, a lower false positive rate, and higher positive predictive valu

99 The statistical power, false positive rates, and receiver operating characteris

100 The true-positive rate, false-positive rate, and accuracy (95% confidence interv

101 tions (defined as <30% fixation losses, <30% false-positive rates, and <30% false-negative rates) wer

102 egression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next

103 r harms of LDCT are radiation exposure, high false-positive rates, and the potential for overdiagnosi

104 False positive rates appear to be low, as PilFind predic

105 lated data sets and found to have a very low false-positive rate ( approximately 6 x 10(-5)) and a fa

106 cy (for our benchmark, the true positive and false positive rates are 73% and 29%, respectively).

107 elevant, but validation and determination of false positive rates are challenging.

108 For the same false-positive rate as Hemoccult II (0.98%), the true-po

109 emonstrated that we can control the shielder false-positive rate as well as obtain high shielder and

110 fractures at high sensitivity and with a low false-positive rate, as well as to calculate vertebral b

111 There is a high false-positive rate associated with many of these tests

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

113 ed a novel test for controlling the shielder false-positive rate at a predetermined level by requirin

114 suggested that pRSEM has a greatly decreased false-positive rate at the expense of a small increase i

115 a 5% improvement in true positives at the 5% false-positive rate at the residue level.

116 , a method was developed for determining the false-positive rate (background) signal.

117 False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 10

118 The difference in false-positive rates between cultures from babies and ad

119 screpancy, the false-negative rates, and the false-positive rates between patient and surrogates were

120 y predicted poor neurologic outcome with low false-positive rates: bilateral absence of pupillary ref

121 VarScan and SNVer had generally lower false positive rates, but also significantly lower sensi

122 erogeneity; and an underestimation of actual false positive rate by Benjamini-Hochberg correction.

123 average error rate, false-negative rate and false-positive rate by 26, 15 and 35%, respectively.

124 bjects, this bias can decrease the voxelwise false-positive rate by more than 30% in the control grou

125 e of false-negative rates in addition to the false-positive rates common to all Bloom filter-based ap

126 IsoMut, when tuned correctly, decreases the false positive rate compared to conventional tools in a

127 the IDOL library resulted in uniformly lower false positive rates compared to competing libraries, wh

128 ts are more precise, showing greatly reduced false-positive rates compared to the alternative approac

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

130 However, high false-positive rates, costs, and potential harms highlig

131 a model based on motif scanning alone, at a false positive rate cutoff of 0.01.

132 ic curve improved from 0.89 to 0.98, and the false-positive rate decreased from 36% (nine of 25 lesio

133 With tomosynthesis, the false-positive rate decreased from 85% (989 of 1160) to

134 ction is a weighted sum of true-positive and false-positive rates divided by incidence, as estimated

135 methods often suffer from impractically high false positive rates, especially in the context of analy

136 variants one-by-one, leading to intractable false positive rates, even with vast samples of subjects

137 sclerosis case collection and determined the false-positive rate expected when comparing such a colle

138 predictive value, negative predictive value, false-positive rate, false-negative rate) of multiple at

139 her USPSTF screening recommendations; harms (false-positive rates, false-negative rates, surgery rate

140 e to their incomplete CDS, leading to higher false positive rate for lncRNA identification.

141 False positive rates for mortality were less than 5% for

142 cator; although some variables have very low false positive rates for poor outcome, multimodal assess

143 ons we demonstrate that this model has a low false-positive rate for classifying neutral genetic regi

144 The false-positive rate for detection of critical congenital

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

146 approximately 2%, improving upon the higher false-positive rate for existing methods that do not uti

147 The median tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calcu

148 ease in both the false-negative rate and the false-positive rate for lowly expressed genes.

149 tion programs tested, and Infernal has a low false-positive rate for non-coding gene detection.

150 y persons to potential harms, and cumulative false-positive rates for low-dose CT have never been for

151 False-positive rates for progression in normal eyes usin

152 t a 0.87 true positive rate (TPR) and a 0.13 false positive rate (FPR) for caspase substrates, and a

153 the poorly explored issue of the control of false positive rate (FPR) in the mapping of pair-wise ep

154 ositive rate of 54%, the predictor's overall false positive rate (FPR) is estimated to be 1.52%, whic

155 ined by means of next-generation sequencing (False Positive Rate (FPR), 3.5%; R5- or X4 tropic varian

156 With an estimated 5% false-positive rate (FPR) in approximately 3000 human an

157 5% confidence interval [CI]: 83%, 97%), at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 10.8 per patient (95% CI: 6

158 mance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and can

159 uence-based calls of X4 variants (Geno2Pheno false-positive rate [FPR] of </=2%) formed distinct line

160 formance (detection rates [DR] for specified false-positive rates [FPR] and vice versa).

161 (false negative rate, FNR 5%) and accuracy (false positive rate, FPR 1x10(-)(5)).

162 False-positive rates (FPRs 1 - specificity) with their 9

163 Tau cutoffs had low false-positive rates (FPRs) for good outcome while retai

164 o account 1, 2, and 3 isotopes decreases the false positive rate from 22, 2.8 to <0.3%, but the cost

165 functional miR-TSVs is difficult due to high false positive rates; functional miRNA recognition seque

166 point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ra

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

168 te (ie, the hit rate or specificity) and the false-positive rate (ie, the false-alarm rate or 1 - sen

169 e overall detection rate was 95% with a 0.1% false-positive rate if 20% of women were selected to rec

170 east one of the following problems: (i) high false-positive rate; (ii) long running time; (iii) work

171 ibutions are anti-conservative and have high false positive rates in some scenarios, although the emp

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

173 NSE > 33 ng/ml has a high false-positive rate in patients treated with hypothermia

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

175 more effective than trimming in reducing the false-positive rate in single nucleotide polymorphism (S

176 cing data analysis since masking reduces the false-positive rate in SNP calling without sacrificing t

177 of factors that might influence the elevated false-positive rate in the neonates including patient de

178 capable of fairly good sensitivity with low false-positive rates in detecting strong selection at in

179 the potential harms of treatment (ie, higher false-positive rates in low-prevalence populations) as s

180 hen the best of three measures was used, the false-positive rate increased to 90%.

181 The false-positive rate is approximately 0.033%.

182 ons remains required, because a considerable false-positive rate is noticed.

183 0.1-mL remnant with 5% false-negative and 1% false-positive rates is less than 1 s.

184 old enrichment of true positives at the 0.05 false-positive rate level.

185 ith change, sensitivity is high, with a high false-positive rate (low specificity).

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

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

188 in 12.5 min, with a 95% recovery and a zero false positive rate (n = 15).

189 rs made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%.

190 4-5 with a positive predictive value of 99%, false positive rate of 0.5%, and a sensitivity of 48%.

191 ghly malignant electroencephalography had an false positive rate of 1.5% with accuracy of 85.7% (95%

192 rs found 90 false peak pairs, representing a false positive rate of 4.4%.

193 At a False Positive Rate of 5%, our method determines true po

194 icted with sensitivities of 63% and 58% at a false positive rate of 6% and 7% at 12 and 24 hours, res

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

196 h and found to be considerably better (e.g., false positive rate of 6.25%, compared with a value of 5

197 H), achieving a validation rate of 82% and a false positive rate of 8%.

198 text of this large-scale study we obtained a false positive rate of approximately 1 in 500,000 bp and

199 Our goal was to reduce the false positive rate of CM diagnosis, and so the algorith

200 f reporter ions fragments, which reduces the false positive rate of incorrectly assigned cross-linked

201 ikelihood-based error modeling to reduce the false positive rate of mutation discovery in exome analy

202 roughput of 100,000 particles/s and a record false positive rate of one in a million.

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

204 showed that both the true positive rate and false positive rate of the proposed detection method do

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

206 etect all aneuploid cases with extremely low false positive rates of 0.09%, <0.01%, and 0.08% for tri

207 misaligned at the codon level, resulting in false positive rates of 48%-82%.

208 100% sensitivity for outbreak isolates, with false positive rates of between 9% and 22%.

209 he primary end point was a comparison of the false positive rates of detection of fetal trisomies 21

210 t a reference genome are susceptible to high false positive rates of homology detection.

211 igh, and unacceptable for most applications, false positives rate of 50%-55%.

212 he specificity was 99.9% (99.7-99.9), with a false-positive rate of 0.14% (0.06-0.33).

213 achieved a true-positive rate of 0.91 and a false-positive rate of 0.14.

214 achieved a true-positive rate of 0.83 and a false-positive rate of 0.17.

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

216 of 26 findings; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.96), with a false-positive rate of 1.3.

217 of 60 findings; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.94), with a false-positive rate of 1.6.

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

219 77% for acute traumatic coagulopathy with a false-positive rate of 13%.

220 I, 79.1% to 86.0%) and was associated with a false-positive rate of 16.9% (vs. 5.5% for screening wit

221 itivity of 79% and specificity of 81% with a false-positive rate of 19.4%.

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

223 of 107 findings; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.87), with a false-positive rate of 2.7.

224 ted with poor outcome (p = 0.017), but had a false-positive rate of 29.3% (95% confidence interval [C

225 , benign, or normal findings, resulting in a false-positive rate of 29.6%.

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

227 82% of de novo single base mutations with a false-positive rate of about one error per Gb, resulting

228 We estimate that SNIP-Seq achieves a low false-positive rate of approximately 2%, improving upon

229 h can potentially be exploited to reduce the false-positive rate of conventional mammography and unne

230 on positively correlates with the behavioral false-positive rate of face choices.

231 Because of the high false-positive rate of LDCT, antibiotics should be regar

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

233 ingle nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a false-positive rate of less than 1% as validated by Sang

234 tion results show that Atlas-SNP2 achieves a false-positive rate of lower than 10%, with an approxima

235 seful adjunct to pDUS because it reduces the false-positive rate of pDUS.

236 doknots are found with half or better of the false-positive rate of previous methods.

237 est approach that envisioned controlling the false-positive rate of study results over many (hypothet

238 d success as they all suffered from the high false-positive rate of target prediction results.

239 curate than PClouds, Augustus has the lowest false-positive rate of the coding gene prediction progra

240 otein probability of >/=99%, and the peptide false-positive rate of the data set was 1.8% as estimate

241 were performed to investigate the power and false-positive rate of this procedure, providing recomme

242 oid wheat, we were also able to estimate the false-positive rate of this strategy as 0 to 28% dependi

243 We used artificial sequences to evaluate the false-positive rates of a set of programs for detecting

244 on by history of coronary heart disease, the false-positive rates of association tests will be close

245 The high false-positive rates of CT (20%) and PET/CT (9%) resulte

246 on screening accuracy for syphilis reported false-positive rates of less than 1%.

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

248 nces as negative controls for evaluating the false-positive rates of prediction tools, such as gene i

249 sensitivity and bias by comparing true- and false-positive rates offer limited insights into the mec

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

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

252 ate of error discovery without affecting the false positive rate, particularly within the middle of r

253 On average, 0.5 false-positive rate per view were microcalcification clu

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

255 e show that our method has a well-calibrated false-positive rate, performing well with ChIP-seq data

256 rue-positive rate ranging from 3% to 57% for false-positive rates ranging from 0.00001 to 0.001, resp

257 idual components frequently suffer from high false-positive rate, rarely resulting in a unique soluti

258 Furthermore, the system has a very low false-positive rate resulting in a precision of up to 99

259 At a 10% false positive rate, sEng had higher detection rates of

260 e of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR false-positive rate , sensitivity, and CDR cancer detect

261 cteristics were associated with recall rate, false-positive rate, sensitivity, or positive predictive

262 about 80-95% of test data sets, whereas the false positive rate (specificity) was lower than 20% for

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

264 ed that LASSO had the higher power and lower false positive rate than the other three methods.

265 redicted 50% more orthologs with a 50% lower false positive rate than the widely used BBH method.

266 n RepeatScout and ReCon and has a much lower false positive rate than WindowMasker.

267 onships in Caenorhabditis elegans at a lower false-positive rate than can the current standard method

268 At the same false positive rate, the sensitivity of our WAVELET meth

269 With a 10% false-positive rate, the genetic score alone detected 19

270 Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive findin

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

272 CT resulted in a five-fold reduction of LDCT false-positive rate to 3.7%.

273 ng characteristic (ROC) curves, and true and false positive rates (TPR and FPR).

274 g medications in mutation carriers, although false-positive rates, unneeded imaging, and unneeded sur

275 ans suspect sepsis, yet are low-yield with a false-positive rate up to 50%.

276 disease incidence trends produced increased false-positive rates (up to 0.15 at alpha=0.05) under st

277 (empirical simulations), while not inflating false-positive rate using a study with biological replic

278 e (<10%) of vision abnormalities showed high false-positive rates (usually >75%).

279 extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to

280 as 49% (73 of 148 twinkling foci), while the false-positive rate was 51% (75 of 148 twinkling foci).

281 The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with

282 The false-positive rate was 93 of 834 (11.2%) for all cases,

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

284 False positive rates were 0.06% (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.11) i

285 s 0.997, true-positive rates were >0.99, and false-positive rates were <0.001.

286 The mean and median false-positive rates were 4.7 and 3 per series, respecti

287 False-positive rates were higher for a Glasgow Coma Scal

288 False-positive rates were higher for women with risk fac

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

290 in routine clinical practice and has a high false-positive rate when 5-mm unenhanced CT images are u

291 sent in mate-pair sequencing and reduces the false positive rate while maintaining sensitivity.

292 sfully reveal a network structure with a low false positive rate while still capturing non-linear and

293 xity, resulting in an effective reduction in false positive rate with minimum loss in statistical pow

294 For trisomies 21 and 18, the false positive rates with cfDNA testing were significant

295 We also observed a low false-positive rate with all three methods; of the heter

296 The cause for the 50% false-positive rate with the antigen test was not determ

297 y for invasive cancers, and the reduction in false-positive rates with DBT in prospective trials indi

298 re compared in terms of cancer detection and false-positive rates with the corresponding FFDM plus DB

299 A major risk of CT screening is a high false-positive rate, with associated risks and costs ass

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