ライフサイエンスコーパス: positive rate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 it nevertheless tends toward a higher false positive rate.

14 noncontributory to both the MIC and culture-positive rate.

15 posed a list of filters to control the false-positive rate.

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

17 ficity, moderate sensitivity and a low false-positive rate.

18 ion in terms of power of detection and false positive rate.

19 specific antigen (PSA) test has a high false positive rate.

20 ube lot was the likely cause of the elevated positive rate.

21 ncing data, but also has a much higher false positive rate.

22 jects, suggesting an unacceptably high false-positive rate.

23 h a 6% false-negative rate and a 0.66% false-positive rate.

24 tional variance to avoid inflating the false-positive rate.

25 el variants had a significantly higher false positive rate.

26 g strategy, with a properly controlled false-positive rate.

27 esult in loss of power and/or inflated false positive rate.

28 l mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate.

29 with OPR greater than the anticipated false-positive rate.

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

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

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

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

34 quality control steps and lowering the false positive rate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44 sensitivities and maintained moderate false positive rates.

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

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

47 utational prediction methods have high false positive rates.

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

49 st to have causal predictions with low false-positive rates.

50 ms with high statistical power and low false positive rates.

51 c pathology is essential to avoid high false-positive rates.

52 ccuracy due to high false negative and false positive rates.

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

54 andom models show equilibration with similar positive rates.

55 gn prostatic hyperplasia and have high false positive rates.

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

57 population structure resulting in high false positive rates.

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

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

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

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

62 -16.08), myoclonic status epilepticus (false-positive rate, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.11; positive likelih

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70 3 to 4 percentage points higher with a false-positive rate 30 times greater if women with failed test

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

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

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

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

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

76 96% of all stimuli, with less than 5% false positive rate and a ~20ms error in timing.

77 perimental results showed that both the true positive rate and false positive rate of the proposed de

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

79 90% sensitivity and specificity at 20% false-positive rate and false-negative rate thresholds.

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

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

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

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

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

85 DELISHUS achieves significantly lower false-positive rates and higher power than previously publishe

86 Positive rates and histologic findings of initial and re

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

88 s better control of false negative and false positive rates and its ability to quantify RNAi effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99 s of LDCT are radiation exposure, high false-positive rates, and the potential for overdiagnosis.

100 False positive rates appear to be low, as PilFind predicted on

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

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

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

104 There is a high false-positive rate associated with many of these tests and un

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

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

107 mprovement in true positives at the 5% false-positive rate at the residue level.

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

109 False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 exa

110 The difference in false-positive rates between cultures from babies and adults w

111 ncy, the false-negative rates, and the false-positive rates between patient and surrogates were great

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

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

114 ge error rate, false-negative rate and false-positive rate by 26, 15 and 35%, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

121 more precise, showing greatly reduced false-positive rates compared to the alternative approaches.

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

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

124 With tomosynthesis, the false-positive rate decreased from 85% (989 of 1160) to 74% (8

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

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

127 In both groups, the culture-positive rate did not change significantly when adjusted

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

129 nts one-by-one, leading to intractable false positive rates, even with vast samples of subjects.

130 sis case collection and determined the false-positive rate expected when comparing such a collection

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

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

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

134 The false-positive rate for detection of critical congenital heart

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

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

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

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

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

140 Conclusion Positive rates for large polyps at repeat CT colonograph

141 itive rate as Hemoccult II (0.98%), the true-positive rates for Magstream and OC Sensor FITs were 0.6

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

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

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

145 fidence interval [CI]: 83%, 97%), at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 10.8 per patient (95% CI: 6.6, 15

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

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

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

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

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

151 False-positive rates (FPRs 1 - specificity) with their 95% con

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

160 all detection rate was 95% with a 0.1% false-positive rate if 20% of women were selected to receive D

161 ne of the following problems: (i) high false-positive rate; (ii) long running time; (iii) work only f

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

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

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

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

166 ata analysis since masking reduces the false-positive rate in SNP calling without sacrificing the fal

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

168 tors that might influence the elevated false-positive rate in the neonates including patient demograp

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

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

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

172 For both sexes, the positive rate increased significantly, from 2.4% to 3.8%

173 The false-positive rate is approximately 0.033%.

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

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

176 richment of true positives at the 0.05 false-positive rate level.

177 ange, sensitivity is high, with a high false-positive rate (low specificity).

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

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

180 t change was found in the MIC level, culture-positive rate, MIC50 level, and MIC90 level in the contr

181 Positive rate (more than class 2) of allergen-specific I

182 .5 min, with a 95% recovery and a zero false positive rate (n = 15).

183 cificity was 99.9% (99.7-99.9), with a false-positive rate of 0.14% (0.06-0.33).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

194 or acute traumatic coagulopathy with a false-positive rate of 13%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

204 te of 85.42% and from ATL patients at a true-positive rate of 75.00%, and modeled in conjunction with

205 -fold cross validation was 0.82, with a true positive rate of 78.2%.

206 hieving a validation rate of 82% and a false positive rate of 8%.

207 tinguish HAM/TSP patients from ACs at a true-positive rate of 85.42% and from ATL patients at a true-

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

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

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

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

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

213 rter ions fragments, which reduces the false positive rate of incorrectly assigned cross-linked pepti

214 The positive rate of LAMP-QCM was higher than that of conven

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

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

217 ood-based error modeling to reduce the false positive rate of mutation discovery in exome analysis an

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

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

220 s are found with half or better of the false-positive rate of previous methods.

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

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

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

224 PCR, demonstrating high sensitivity and true positive rate of the algorithm.

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

226 d that both the true positive rate and false positive rate of the proposed detection method do not ch

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

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

229 eat, we were also able to estimate the false-positive rate of this strategy as 0 to 28% depending on

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

231 all aneuploid cases with extremely low false positive rates of 0.09%, <0.01%, and 0.08% for trisomies

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

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 ensitivity for outbreak isolates, with false positive rates of between 9% and 22%.

239 The high false-positive rates of CT (20%) and PET/CT (9%) resulted in o

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

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

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

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

244 Positive rates of Staphylococcus aureus were 79%, 75%, 5

245 tivity and bias by comparing true- and false-positive rates offer limited insights into the mechanism

246 Observed positive rate (OPR) in each follow-up was calculated as

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

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

249 tion between HB vaccination dosage and HBsAg-positive rate (P for trend = 0.011).

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

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

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

253 that our method has a well-calibrated false-positive rate, performing well with ChIP-seq data having

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

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

256 components frequently suffer from high false-positive rate, rarely resulting in a unique solution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

267 Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding incr

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

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

270 racteristic (ROC) curves, and true and false positive rates (TPR and FPR).

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 HBsAg-positive rate was 15% in HB immunoglobulin (HBIG) recipi

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

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

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

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

282 Among HBIG recipients, the HBsAg-positive rate was significantly higher in subjects with

283 was 99.3%, area under curve was 0.997, true-positive rates were >0.99, and false-positive rates were

284 7, true-positive rates were >0.99, and false-positive rates were <0.001.

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

286 The overall HBsAg and anti-HBs-positive rates were 1.9% and 48.3%, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

292 utine clinical practice and has a high false-positive rate when 5-mm unenhanced CT images are used as

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

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

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

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

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

298 pared in terms of cancer detection and false-positive rates with the corresponding FFDM plus DBT inte

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

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