ライフサイエンスコーパス: predictive value

1 ut any false-positive results (100% positive predictive value).

2 c biliary disease-again showed the strongest predictive value.

3 of the 'novel' predictors added significant predictive value.

4 about unique histological features and their predictive value.

5 nt characteristics was of limited additional predictive value.

6 ard for calculating sensitivity and positive predictive value.

7 nical outcome scores to determine a possible predictive value.

8 SD, nsVT, and obstruction showed significant predictive values.

9 ation, or pulmonary hemorrhage did not alter predictive values.

10 score threshold demonstrating high negative predictive value (0.95) for death.

11 specificity 88% (95% CI, 87%-89%), positive predictive value 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%), and negative pred

12 ivity (100% versus 70%, P<0.05) and negative predictive value (100% versus 89%, P<0.05) than QRS dura

13 icity (91%), and positive (93%) and negative predictive value (100%) for ISH positivity.

14 a, had a higher sensitivity (100%), negative predictive value (100%), and accuracy (66%) for malignan

15 positive predictive value = 93.3%, negative predictive value = 100%).

16 p16 had lower sensitivity (83%) and positive predictive value (40%) but high specificity (94%) and ne

17 patients who lived at least a year (positive predictive value, 45.2%).

18 patients who lived at least a year (positive predictive value, 61.5%).

19 ity was 76.3%, and the positive and negative predictive values 62.2% and 95.7%, respectively.

20 n = 95), specificity(82% vs. 62%), positive predictive value(66% vs. 50%) and area under curve (0.81

21 ostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predict

22 .5%, respectively) and positive and negative predictive values (74.7% and 78.5%, respectively) was ac

23 % sensitivity, 51% specificity, 44% positive predictive value, 80% negative predictive value, and lik

24 -ERK expression showed an increased positive predictive value (81.8% vs 75.9%) and an increased speci

25 22, and 1.05, respectively; P<0.05; negative predictive value 92%).

26 ing out sc-TCMR (specificity = 70%, negative predictive value = 92.5%), but could not predict sc-ABMR

27 predicting sc-AR (specificity, 98%; positive predictive value 93%) (all sc-ABMR and 58% sc-TCMR showe

28 XCL8 in healthy individuals found a negative predictive value 93.5%, given the population prevalence

29 m(2) and strain >23.4% yielded high negative predictive value (93% and 98%, respectively) for new-ons

30 tivity = 100%, specificity = 97.4%, positive predictive value = 93.3%, negative predictive value = 10

31 y treatment success both had a high positive predictive value (94.3%-100.0%) for late clinical cure,

32 89% vs. 78%specificity, 73% vs. 57%positive predictive value, 95% vs. 94%negative predictive value,

33 ces in sensitivity (83% vs. 70%) or negative predictive values (96% vs. 92%).

34 .91 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.96) and a high negative predictive value (97%; 95% CI: 93%, 99%).

35 ing 18 index and two 30-day events (negative predictive value, 97.9%; 95% confidence interval, 96.9-9

36 s low risk for the primary outcome (negative predictive value, 98.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9

37 40%) but high specificity (94%) and negative predictive value (99%) for ISH positivity.

38 sing 2 index and two 30-day events (negative predictive value, 99.5%; 95% confidence interval, 99.0-9

39 (P<0.001) with similar performance (negative predictive value, 99.7%; 95% CI, 99.4%-99.9%; sensitivit

40 with specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value all >99%, whereas other linkages result

41 CCL17 and CCL26 expression had 100% positive predictive value and 87% negative predictive value for a

42 vestigated if adding TTR would improve their predictive value and clinical usefulness.

43 The readers' positive predictive value and negative predictive value were broa

44 The negative predictive value and sensitivity of troponin concentrati

45 The positive predictive value and specificity at the 99th centile dia

46 The positive predictive value and specificity at the 99th centile wer

47 sitive predictive value, 95% vs. 94%negative predictive value, and 0.87 vs. 0.82 area under curve, al

48 ificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy were 95.2%, 75%, 96.4%, 6

49 opulation by analyzing recall rate, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate.

50 44% positive predictive value, 80% negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio 1.54 to predict s

51 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for NLP

52 Modeled sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for OC/F

53 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for PLC

54 nstrating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 85.3%

55 es with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 96.0%

56 was used to determine positive and negative predictive values, and a full logistic regression model

57 ze their development, positive- and negative-predictive values, and ability to predict response to tr

58 e and downgrade rates, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood

59 ictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%).

60 in image contrast, sensitivity, or positive predictive values between the 2 (68)Ga-OPS202 peptide do

61 E/e' data improves sensitivity and negative predictive value but compromises specificity, suggesting

62 F to CHA2DS2-VASc statistically improved its predictive value, but c-indexes were not significantly d

63 roved sensitivity (to 90%) and thus negative predictive value, but decreased specificity (71%).

64 approach had a significantly higher positive predictive value compared to minimum inhibitory concentr

65 Positive predictive values decreased with decreasing renal functi

66 The primary outcome, positive predictive value for a physician-confirmed diagnosis of

67 tients in each group), NT-proBNP had similar predictive value for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, ir

68 % positive predictive value and 87% negative predictive value for airway mucosal CCL26-high status.

69 The model has revealed a strong predictive value for baseline cholinesterase and bilirub

70 lded a success rate of 92%, and the negative predictive value for both the influenza A and B assay wa

71 gh-risk patients is essential, as these have predictive value for conversion to psychosis and likelih

72 is to be realized and biomarkers are to have predictive value for determining the magnitude of risk f

73 Regardless of the classification, predictive value for development of periodontitis in you

74 ach other, were of only moderate independent predictive value for distant recurrence, but the status

75 ted to identifying signaling phenotypes with predictive value for early diagnosis, prognosis, or rela

76 y decorin and alpha2-macroglobulin increased predictive value for future severe exacerbations.

77 motor reaction had greater than 70% positive predictive value for good outcome; reactivity (80.4%; 95

78 teria also improved specificity and positive predictive value for HCC (R1, two fewer false-positive f

79 5V pathway improved specificity and positive predictive value for HCC to 83.3% and 92.9%, respectivel

80 ients, total LGE but not LGE border zone had predictive value for ICD therapy.

81 losis infection (LTBI) are limited by a poor predictive value for identifying people at the highest r

82 e and irreversible myocardial injury and its predictive value for left ventricular remodeling.

83 ATRIA, ORBIT and HEMORR2HAGES improved their predictive value for major bleeding leading to improved

84 ation between the duration of monitoring and predictive value for mortality (R = 0.78; p < 0.001).

85 Positive predictive value for MR imaging recalls was 9.3% (95% CI

86 lume (area under the curve 0.83) showed good predictive value for new-onset AF.

87 ity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for NLP algorithm in predicting asthma

88 ity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for OC/FTC detection within 1 year were

89 New R ratio Hy's law had a higher positive predictive value for overall fatality (14% versus 10%) a

90 Early warning scores are known to have good predictive value for patient deterioration and have been

91 ity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for PLC injuries were 55% (11 of 20), 9

92 sease had 88% specificity and a 92% positive predictive value for predicting the presence of a BRAF m

93 oplastic neurological disorders and has high predictive value for SCLC.

94 The highest predictive value for seizure recurrence was presence of

95 oreover, a number of imaging features showed predictive value for specific pathways; for example, int

96 parameters exceeded thresholds, the negative predictive value for survival above 1 y was 79%.

97 combined diaschisis measures had a positive predictive value for survival below 1 y of 100%.

98 In this work we study its possible predictive value for the appearance of acute thrombotic

99 rmore, theta oscillatory activity may have a predictive value for the clinical benefit after chronic

100 , and responsiveness to one has therefore no predictive value for the other.

101 Positive predictive values for (68)Ga-OPS202 PET/CT and (68)Ga-DO

102 Positive and negative predictive values for ABMR at a cutoff of 1.0% dd-cfDNA

103 gorithm yielded an average of 95.8% positive predictive values for both cases and control subjects.

104 Positive predictive values for identifying true NF and debridemen

105 vity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for malignant tumors of the conjunctiv

106 and hindbrain had high negative and positive predictive values for survival for less than a year.

107 collection of 200 clinical Acinetobacter sp. Predictive values for susceptibility and resistance were

108 was reflected in poor positive and negative predictive values for treatment failure.

109 vity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for WGS in predicting AMR were 0.87, 0

110 he saEPI was associated with a high negative predictive value in both groups.

111 racking of infiltrating macrophages may have predictive value in determining whether transplanted ste

112 not improve the specificity and the positive predictive value in our series.

113 justed alpha = .0125), with highest positive predictive value in phase 1 (64.0%) and highest negative

114 alue in phase 1 (64.0%) and highest negative predictive value in phase 2 (90.2%).

115 Negative predictive values in both analyses were higher than 99%

116 However, its predictive value is too low to advocate its use as a sur

117 Considering its positive predictive value, it might allow to make a considerable

118 0.97 [745 of 766]) were higher than positive predictive values (men, 0.01 [88 of 582]; women, 0.16 [1

119 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values (NPVs), an

120 positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for each code of interest.

121 The primary outcome measure was the negative predictive value (NPV) of FDG-PET/CT scans and other sup

122 ositive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of RDTs were 51.7%, 94.1%, 67.3%,

123 positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ST for anaphylaxis related to

124 y, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic time.

125 sitive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were 92.7%, 100%, 100%, and 94.3

126 range, 91%-99%; PPV range, 0%-3.6%; negative predictive value [NPV] range, >/=99%).

127 equired neurosurgical intervention (negative predictive value [NPV], 100.0% [95% CI: 99.9%-100.0%]).

128 sitive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) by comparing agreement in class

129 The negative predictive values (NPVs) for rayon swabs and ESwab speci

130 ficity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values (NPVs), and accuracy were calculated f

131 urther studies are warranted to evaluate the predictive value of (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET for everolimu

132 UC of 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.94) and a negative predictive value of 0.92 (95% 0.88-0.95) at the predefin

133 The added predictive value of 10 CAC progression algorithms on top

134 sensitivity of 100.0% and 63.6% and negative predictive value of 100.0% and 66.6%, respectively.

135 nsitivity, 94.0% specificity, and a positive predictive value of 2.6%.

136 sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value of 47.6%, 93.9%, 55.6%, and 91.9% for c

137 % sensitivity, 60.8% specificity, a positive predictive value of 5.7%, and a negative predictive valu

138 ositive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of 54.8%, 97.7%, 79.3%, and 93.1% for c

139 This study sought to compare the incremental predictive value of 7 different frailty scales to predic

140 ded a Dice coefficient of 75.86%, a positive predictive value of 71.62% and a negative predictive val

141 pecificity of 93.1% (364 of 391), a positive predictive value of 74.8% (80 of 107), and a negative pr

142 r was below the threshold, it had a positive predictive value of 75%, and when both parameters exceed

143 e value of 74.8% (80 of 107), and a negative predictive value of 78.1% (364 of 466).

144 511) and B (n = 127) demonstrated a positive predictive value of 78.4% for "clinical AERD," which ros

145 ue of 89.6% (95% CI, 89.1-90.1) and negative predictive value of 79.7% (95% CI, 79.4-80.1).

146 minate Quantiferon-CMV result had a positive predictive value of 83% and a negative predictive value

147 ve value of 95.5% (21 of 22), and a negative predictive value of 83.3% (10 of 12).

148 0), accuracy of 92.7% (227 of 245), positive predictive value of 84.3% (70 of 83), and negative predi

149 ity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 85.3%, 93.9%, 27.4%, and 99.6%, resp

150 whereas a cutoff of 641 IU/L had a negative predictive value of 88%.

151 (58.4%; 95% CI, 57.7-59.1), with a positive predictive value of 89.6% (95% CI, 89.1-90.1) and negati

152 sensitivity, 84% specificity, and a positive predictive value of 90% for >/=70% stenosis.

153 or M65, a cutoff of 2000 IU/L had a positive predictive value of 91%, whereas a cutoff of 641 IU/L ha

154 ral Performance Category 4-5 with a negative predictive value of 92%.

155 were successfully extubated, for a positive predictive value of 92%.

156 positivity at 2 months with a high negative predictive value of 93% (95% CI, 89 to 96).

157 6 were successfully extubated for a positive predictive value of 93%.

158 y of 88.9% and 63.9% (P = .013) and negative predictive value of 93.1% and 80.9% (P = .045), respecti

159 tive predictive value of 94.1%, and negative predictive value of 93.8%.

160 ficity of 99.3%, accuracy of 93.9%, positive predictive value of 94.1%, and negative predictive value

161 specificity of 63% (55-71), with a negative predictive value of 95% (94-97).

162 11), accuracy of 91.2% (31 of 34), positive predictive value of 95.5% (21 of 22), and a negative pre

163 ity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI],

164 ve predictive value of 71.62% and a negative predictive value of 96.77% in terms of pixel-by-pixel ev

165 tive value of 84.3% (70 of 83), and negative predictive value of 96.9% (157 of 162) for the detection

166 itive predictive value of 83% and a negative predictive value of 98% for identifying participants at

167 ive value 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%), and negative predictive value of 99% (95% CI, 98%-100%) in the popula

168 ral Performance Category 4-5 with a positive predictive value of 99%, false positive rate of 0.5%, an

169 th CRC with 87.0% sensitivity and a negative predictive value of 99.4%.

170 ive predictive value of 5.7%, and a negative predictive value of 99.4%.

171 This resulted in a negative predictive value of 99.5% (95% CI, 99.3%-99.6%) for the

172 e of 97.2% (95% CI 85.0-100), and a negative predictive value of 99.6% (97.9-100).

173 days and 7 (0.1%) at 1 year, with a negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI, 99.7%-99.9%) for card

174 We aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive value of a 3q 19-gene signature identified pr

175 and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the predictive value of acute MRI lesion patterns for discri

176 Specificity and positive predictive value of an HCC imaging diagnosis (LR-5 or LR

177 Some progression algorithms added to the predictive value of baseline CT and risk assessment in t

178 Multivariate analysis confirmed the predictive value of baseline LV SUV for subsequent cardi

179 cluded cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), sensit

180 tive predictive value of recall and positive predictive value of biopsy were lowest in women who had

181 ositive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of biopsy, cancer detection rate, sensi

182 ary outcome was a comparison of the negative predictive value of both pathways for index type 1 myoca

183 The predictive value of CE fraction for three-month mortalit

184 In order to achieve high predictive value of cell chemosensitivity test for clini

185 bust between cohorts and added little to the predictive value of clinical covariates for exacerbation

186 Positive predictive value of CMV PCR in saliva was 59%; false pos

187 (at least 1 of the 3 features), the positive predictive value of confocal microscopy was 87.5% and th

188 The negative predictive value of CTC for adenomas >/=6 mm was 90.7% (

189 e considered the reference standard, and the predictive value of diameter and volume changes was anal

190 Overall, the predictive value of DSA characteristics was moderate, wh

191 The positive predictive value of DSE was calculated for each BP group

192 Positive predictive value of DSE was similar for patients who had

193 In addition, the predictive value of each biomarker alone or in combinati

194 The predictive value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measur

195 However, little is known about the predictive value of frequently measured ST2 levels in pa

196 omatic C. difficile carriage, the diagnostic predictive value of NAATs is limited when used in patien

197 vision than refractory eyes (P < 0.001), the predictive value of OCT findings did not differ accordin

198 between cases and controls and examined the predictive value of plasma GPBB for 90-day functional ou

199 design elements to maximize the quality and predictive value of preclinical experiments.

200 To examine the prognostic and predictive value of primary tumor location in patients w

201 The negative predictive value of programmatic early success was <20%.

202 Positive predictive value of recall and positive predictive value

203 Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of

204 Given the high sensitivity and negative predictive value of results obtained, BacterioScan 216Dx

205 was to measure the sensitivity and negative predictive value of sentinel-lymph-node mapping compared

206 The predictive value of sex, risk factors, symptoms, and non

207 reactions to botulinum antitoxin and (2) the predictive value of skin testing (ST) before botulinum a

208 rate of anaphylaxis, fatal outcomes, modest predictive value of ST, resource requirements for ST, an

209 e responses to particular stimuli beyond the predictive value of stimulus intensity or self-reports o

210 Herein, sST2 improved the predictive value of the API (AUC=0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.84)

211 Prospective trials are needed to assess the predictive value of the circulating biomarkers.

212 FDG PET analysis was conducted to assess the predictive value of the metabolic response to BR compare

213 Predictive value of the presence of aPLs is low, and new

214 The predictive value of the RD-OGI Score was evaluated by co

215 ssion was undertaken to evaluate the optimal predictive value of the RD-OGI Score.

216 The negative predictive value of the staged algorithm was 99.5% (1530

217 However, the algorithms used affects the predictive value of these measures.

218 Further research in refining the predictive value of these models is needed to justify om

219 The positive predictive value of tissue transglutaminase type 2 (tTG)

220 The strong independent predictive value of tSAH may reflect an underrated compo

221 The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of ultrasound in diagnosing dengue feve

222 However, clinical cultures have little predictive value of wound outcomes, and culture-independ

223 The sensitivity and positive predictive value of Xpert MTB/RIF in culture-negative bu

224 for prediction of preeclampsia, and positive predictive values of 4% in the largest, most applicable

225 cificity of 71.4%, and positive and negative predictive values of 45.1% and 98.8%, respectively.

226 sk cirrhosis generates positive and negative predictive values of 80% and 86%, respectively.

227 itivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of 84%, 80%, 64%, and 92%, respectivel

228 pecificity of 99%, and positive and negative predictive values of 89% and 100% for detecting active t

229 nd ADC change measurements achieved negative predictive values of 96% (44 of 46) to 100% (39 of 39).

230 v2.0 displayed overall positive and negative predictive values of 99.7% (CI95: 95.4-98.9) and 97.5% (

231 We present predictive values of a new cerebral recovery index, base

232 2 years as outcome measures, we assessed the predictive values of baseline clinical variables and sep

233 Because of the low prevalence, negative predictive values of CLQ cutoff values (men, 0.99 [573 o

234 er, the very good negative and good positive predictive values of iPET support its use in daily pract

235 The predictive values of mean clinic BP and mean awake or 48

236 The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of NSBH, and FeNO, as well as sputum e

237 However, the low positive predictive values of symptoms elicited in primary mental

238 00518/PRAME and a PLA score with data on the predictive values of the information provided.

239 ies and calculated the positive and negative predictive values of the Lipsker and of the Strasbourg c

240 Despite the increased risk, the positive predictive values of this symptom cluster were low, rang

241 (ie, one with high sensitivity and negative predictive value) of the MPD diameter on CT or MRI as a

242 95% CI 0.56-0.84), but had also significant predictive value on its own (AUC=0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.79)

243 Moreover, such spontaneous dynamics show predictive value over individual cognitive profile and c

244 on, but more specific with a higher negative predictive value (P < 0.001).

245 al score, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accurac

246 sitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood rati

247 ivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) for the two Arabic CAM-IC

248 The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NP

249 We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NP

250 RNA-Seq data, including the highest Positive Predictive Value (PPV) compared to the current state-of-

251 The positive predictive value (PPV) for rayon swabs was 78.7%, versus

252 The positive predictive value (PPV) for recall was almost doubled wit

253 ive likelihood ratio is 9.9 and the positive predictive value (PPV) is 7.0%.

254 of 85.86%, specificity of 100%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% for detecting causes of c

255 rate, 12.6% (95% CI: 12.5%, 12.7%); positive predictive value (PPV) of a biopsy recommendation (PPV2)

256 cancers, as well as specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of MR imaging screening.

257 ty, area under the curve (AUC), and positive predictive value (PPV) of the revised ASRS.

258 clinical history of reactivity, 95% positive predictive value (PPV) or challenge, corrected for ances

259 PCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (N

260 onstrated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of

261 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value we

262 accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV),

263 aimed to validate the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of these diagnostic proc

264 Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPV) of the codes were calculated.

265 , the sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values

266 cancer consistently resulted in low positive predictive values (PPVs) and false-positive rates, with

267 We calculated positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values

268 umber of positive test results, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for advanced neoplasia were det

269 ng characteristic curves [AUCs] and positive predictive values [PPVs].

270 Critically, these metagenes also have predictive value regarding tumor grade and patient outco

271 challenging to validate at scale, and their predictive value remains unclear.

272 in part to a lack of robust biomarkers with predictive value, some optimism has come from the identi

273 The low positive predictive value suggests that further clinical assessme

274 PLR < 13% had 100% specificity and positive predictive value to predict poor recovery (0% false-posi

275 ochemotherapy, iPET has a very good negative predictive value, utilizing both visual (qualitative) an

276 The positive predictive value was 11% and the negative predictive val

277 The positive predictive value was 33.3% (95% CI, 25.6%-45.5%), and th

278 nfocal microscopy was 87.5% and the negative predictive value was 58.5%.

279 cificity was 85% (95% CI, 75%-92%), positive predictive value was 72% (95% CI, 61%-90%), and negative

280 8.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-89.8%), and the negative predictive value was 75.0% (95% CI, 55.1%-88.0%).

281 The positive predictive value was 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-89.8%), and th

282 alue was 72% (95% CI, 61%-90%), and negative predictive value was 96.4% (95% CI, 90%-98.7%).

283 3.3% (95% CI, 25.6%-45.5%), and the negative predictive value was 98.1% (95% CI, 96.9%-100%).

284 94.5) and for adenomas >/=10 mm the negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI, 97.0-100).

285 Predictive value was independently confirmed and compare

286 ve predictive value was 11% and the negative predictive value was more than 99%.

287 ders' positive predictive value and negative predictive value were broadly consistent with each other

288 ositive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value were calculated for both imaging modali

289 The clinical variables of greatest predictive value were coma (31% had seizures; odds ratio

290 Positive and negative predictive values were 21.3% and 95.6%, respectively.

291 99.23%, respectively; positive and negative predictive values were 92.01% and 99.91%, respectively.

292 3.5% (P = 0.001), respectively; and positive predictive values were 94.2% and 89.3%, respectively (P

293 ates, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were calculated for both mammography a

294 ions were 22% and 2%, respectively; negative predictive values were especially low for 10- to 12-year

295 pped between cases and controls and positive predictive values were poor (<3%).

296 Positive and negative predictive values were, respectively, 50% and 100% for G

297 ase and from AQP4 antibody disease with high predictive values, while MOG antibody disease could not

298 with DBT-FFDM (61.3%, P = .01), and positive predictive values with DBT-s2D mammography (40.8%) were

299 ncreased their ability of discrimination and predictive value, with significant improvements in recla

300 d practice improved recall rate and positive predictive values without loss of cancer detection rate