ライフサイエンスコーパス: blind test

1 5% sensitivity, 80.3 0.2% specificity in the blind test.

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

3 to the presented assays for validation or in blind tests.

4 determined accurately in stored onions using blind tests.

5 hods, ranking first among 26 others on CAPRI blind tests.

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

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

8 showed higher accuracy than those reporting blind testing.

9 where the method was evaluated by stringent blind testing.

10 for methodology development and <150 min for blinded tests.

11 re analyzed for model development and double-blinded testing.

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

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

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

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

16 across cross-validation and two independent blind tests, achieving Pearson's correlations of up to 0

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

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

19 "Blind testing" analysis of coprolites by an independent

20 Blinded testing and analysis in a prospectively followed

21 ere performed by five independent operators (blind test) and on three instruments (Rotor-Gene, thermo

22 results for Target XXXI from the seventh CSP blind test, and demonstrate how the method can be used t

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

24 This study performed single-blind testing at a controlled release facility (release

25 nk), and tremor and dyskinesia scores during blinded testing at home (n = 3, P > 0.05, Wilcoxon ranke

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

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

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

29 fectly classified samples in the independent blinded test cohort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

36 s not included in either the training or the blind test data.

37 n and an AUC of 0.883 with 83% accuracy in a blind test dataset of 142 hexapeptides.

38 ys outperform the other methods on the eight blind-test datasets in terms of accurately predicting th

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

40 sing longer time scales, larger actions, and blind testing, enabling more of biology's stories to be

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

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

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

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

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

46 of the ModFOLD server has been independently blind tested in the biennial CASP experiments, as well a

47 lts on CASP11, CASP12 refinement targets and blind tests in CASP 13 turn to be promising.

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

49 fferent spatiotemporal Hi-C datasets for the blind test, including two from mouse embryogenesis, one

50 pplications to known PROTAC structures and a blind test involving PROTACs against BRAF mutant V600E.

51 In a blind test, MycoBCP accurately identified the MOA for 96

52 Further, a blind test (no-STRUC) is compiled collecting experimenta

53 In blind testing, no ART was detected in 300 infection-nonr

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

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

56 ,4-dione submitted in the 2001 international blind test of crystal structure prediction (CSP2001) led

57 wo new data sets of protein variants to do a blind test of its performances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 Blind tests of 4 samples at different concentrations con

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

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

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

68 Here we perform a laboratory-based, blinded test of the gravitational redshift using differe

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

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

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

72 In the blind test on the TP53 gene, DAMpred correctly recognize

73 stness of the ENTRNA, the models are further blind tested on 206 pseudoknot-free and 93 pseudoknotted

74 Blind testing on human kidney tissue demonstrated that t

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

76 The model, tuned on one well and blind-tested on another, achieved 91.48% training and 85

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

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

79 70 (RMSE = 2.06 kcal/mol) on a non-redundant blind test, outperforming existing methods.

80 up to 0.89 across independent, non-redundant blind tests, outperforming alternative approaches.

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

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

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

84 0.86 on 10-fold cross validation and 0.80 in blind tests, performing as well as or better than other

85 HFSC has a large and robust blind testing program, which has provided many insights

86 databases in forensics need to be a part of blind testing programs and work is needed to ensure that

87 up to 0.72 and 0.67 (on cross validation and blind tests, respectively), while our pathogenicity pred

88 elation of 0.73 and 0.77 across training and blind tests, respectively, outperforming available metho

89 idation and 0.45 and 0.36 during independent blind tests, respectively.

90 ndwritten digits from the MNIST dataset, our blind testing results reveal that the diffractive optica

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

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

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

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

95 A blind test set of 64 samples confirmed eight species-spe

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

97 learning and were able to classify 20% model-blind test set patients with an accuracy of 97% and an a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 In blinded tests, site-level log(10)BF for 50-km circles in

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

110 pendent functions in criminal justice making blind testing something in which all parts have a role.

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

112 During single-blind testing, the spectrometer is placed >1 km from dec

113 A blind test was conducted to validate the lower detection

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

115 Subsequent blinded testing was performed on six serum specimens tak

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

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

118 Blind tests were conducted wherein 2 of the 10 gasoline

119 A blind test with 50 metals further confirmed the discrimi

120 imulation periods (from 28 to 80 years) in a blind test with no calibration (Bln) and with the follow

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

122 Our models were independently validated by blind testing with 35 clinical strains and demonstrated

123 Blind testing with quantitative metrics and pathologist

124 Blind testing with the CDC's LD repository samples confi

125 om Forest algorithm achieved 97% accuracy in blind testing, with 100% specificity and 95% sensitivity

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