ライフサイエンスコーパス: false-negative rate

1 from Israel, while maintaining a negligible false negative rate.

2 of SARS-CoV-2 antigens, which causes a high false negative rate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 screening with a PRS while maintaining a low false-negative rate.

15 9 (99mTc) for localization carries a notable false-negative rate.

16 orithm offers better HIT exclusion with a 6% false-negative rate.

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

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

19 peptides with higher confidence and reduced false negative rates.

20 cause unreliable feature selection and high false negative rates.

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

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

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

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

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

26 was assessed in terms of false positive and false negative rates.

27 age and African-American ethnicity increased false negative rates.

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

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

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

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

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

33 from drastically low sensitivities and high false negative rates.

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

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

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

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

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

39 hibits considerably lower false-positive and false-negative rates.

40 ropriately accounting for false-positive and false-negative rates.

41 ecall curve, subgroup calibration error, and false-negative rates.

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

43 ure of sample quality that could help reduce false-negative rates.

44 s can drastically reduce false positives and false negatives rates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54 1.24]; negative LR, 0.06 [CI, 0.04 to 0.09]; false-negative rate, 5%; false-positive rate, 11%).

55 4.55]; negative LR, 0.07 [CI, 0.04 to 0.11]; false-negative rate, 5%; false-positive rate, 24%).

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

57 ader variability and high false-positive and false-negative rates(7-10).

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

59 We consider the false negative rate acceptable for routine clinical use;

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

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

62 mammography, significant false positive and false negative rates along with non-uniformities in expe

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

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

65 Clinical care algorithms yielded high false-negative rates among Hispanic participants (14% wi

66 RaPID-Query achieved a 0.016 false negative rate and a 0.012 false positive rate simu

67 superior to C. elegans based on both reduced false negative rate and superior overall quality of acti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

75 removal of VFs with high false-positive and false-negative rates and entries with missing data-were

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

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

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

79 the reported affinity accuracy, reduces the false-negative rate, and increases the amount of useful

80 the FS technique, rate of occult metastasis, false-negative rate, and survival.

81 sing Dice scores, false discovery rates, and false-negative rates, and a comparison with neuroradiolo

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

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

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

85 28-44]) of 134 infected close contacts, and false-negative rates appeared to be associated with stag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

97 ierarchical model was fitted to estimate the false-negative rate by day since exposure and symptom on

98 Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive pre

99 tive rates due to limited resolving power or false-negative rates caused by competitive ion-molecule

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

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

102 e rate of repeat exams (within 1 wk) and the false-negative rate (defined as diagnosis of venous thro

103 tion slope, discriminative ability, PPV, and false-negative rates (eg, false-negative rate for Hispan

104 g results with much lower false-positive and false-negative rates especially with a high multiplicity

105 A significant false-negative rate exists with current biliary viabilit

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

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

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

109 ation was 92.3 5.2% and 93.3 4.5% as well as False Negative Rate (FNR) of 0.0 0.0% and 0.0 0.0% for t

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

111 logy to doping control is challenging as the false negative rate (FNR) shall be equal to zero.

112 ative rate (TNR), false positive rate (FPR), false negative rate (FNR), area under the receiver opera

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

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

115 on rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on t

116 ck melanoma (HNM) is complicated by a higher false-negative rate (FNR) compared with other regions.

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

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

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

120 n endpoints were the detection rate (DR) and false-negative rate (FNR) of TLNB and TAD after NST.

121 The primary endpoint was the false-negative rate (FNR) of VAB-confirmed pCR-B.

122 formed to compare identification rate (IFR), false-negative rate (FNR), and negative predictive value

123 The identification rate, false-negative rate (FNR), and negative predictive value

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

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

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

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

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

129 P. falciparum, most IBD callers exhibit high false negative rates for shorter IBD segments, which can

130 Pre-symptomatic spread and high false negative rates for testing may make it difficult t

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

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

133 The false-negative rate for CO-RADS 1 was nine of 161 cases

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

135 Within the RAVEN cohort, the expected false-negative rate for detection at lower rep numbers u

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

137 ability, PPV, and false-negative rates (eg, false-negative rate for Hispanic patients: 9.2% [95% CI,

138 risk for future breast cancer, with a lower false-negative rate for more aggressive cancers.

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

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

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

142 The false-negative rate for pure clustered microcalcificatio

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

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

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

146 15% reduction in false positives at the same false-negative rate for three of five commercially avail

147 a history of asthma associated with a higher false-negative rate for VQ (asthma, 0.4%; nonasthma, 0.9

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

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

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

151 namics of SARS-CoV-2 can lead to an apparent false negative rate from ~ 17 to ~ 48%.

152 biasing was associated with lowered subgroup false-negative rates from 0.142 to 0.125 (11.9%), while

153 biasing was associated with lowered subgroup false-negative rates from 0.142 to 0.132 (6.8%; differen

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

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

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

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

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

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

160 False-negative rate in muPAD was calculated to be 3.5%.

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

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

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

164 o neoadjuvant systemic therapy and decreased false-negative rates in sentinel lymph node biopsy.

165 model comparison approach leading to better false-negative rates in sites with weak yet significant

166 False-negative rates indicated differential, unfair perf

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

168 ver, take days to provide the diagnosis, and false negative rate is relatively high.

169 infected people in the populations while the false negative rate is typically under 10%.

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

171 The false-negative rate is probably an underestimate.

172 Nonuniform distributions of viral load and false negative rate lead to higher requirements for freq

173 At a false-negative rate less than 10%, the use of plasma p-t

174 ver these tests have high false-positive and false-negative rates limiting their reliability.

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

176 urpose in PA-monitoring applications, with a false negative rate <1.3 % at 4 ug L(-1).

177 , 0.022 [95% CI, 0.017-0.026]; P < .001) and false-negative rates (mean difference with reweighing, 0

178 P < .001) and displayed significantly lower false-negative rates (mean difference, -0.184 [95% CI, -

179 er primary chemotherapy because the high SNB false negative rate might lead to poorer outcomes.

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

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

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

183 andard kits and protocols, with an estimated false negative rate of 10%.

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

185 nts improved the pathway, yielding a similar false negative rate of 4.9% but decreased specialty refe

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

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

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

189 The false negative rate of all ancillary studies was 4% (5%

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

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

192 fferent levels of sequence divergence show a false negative rate of no higher than 10% while unadjust

193 sidering the dynamics of both viral load and false negative rate of tests on the ability of testing t

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

195 ptimization of XCMS parameters can lead to a false negative rate of up to 80% for chemicals spiked at

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

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

198 1 of 27 cases; 95% CI: 62.1%, 93.5%), with a false-negative rate of 0%.

199 9 cases; 95% CI: 52.2%, 85.8%), again with a false-negative rate of 0%.

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

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

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

203 of 29% (and 336 low-risk participants with a false-negative rate of 19%); 40% of high-risk participan

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

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

206 -59.0) in STRATIFY-1 patients, with an assay false-negative rate of 2.7% (95% CI, 0.9-6.2).

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

208 g a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 81%-100%), a false-negative rate of 4% (95% CI, 0%-19%), and a negati

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

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

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

212 itionally, the system exhibits a low average false-negative rate of 4.8% +/- 1.6%, minimizing the mis

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

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

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

216 .1% (2544 of 2619; 95% CI 96.4-97.7), with a false-negative rate of 9.8% (75 of 766; 95% CI 7.8-12.2)

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

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

219 Due to the high false-negative rate of approximately one-third of patien

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

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

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

223 On a per-patient level, the false-negative rate of pFGS was 23.7% (9 of 38), and sen

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

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

226 As the false-negative rate of SLNB correlates with the number o

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

228 The false-negative rate of the Accula POC test calls for a m

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

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

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

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

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

234 93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97; false-positive and false-negative rates of 22% and 0%, respectively, using

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

236 have demonstrated sentinel lymph node (SLN) false-negative rates of less than 10% when 3 or more SLN

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

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

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

240 ificant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-negative rate (P = .38), cancer detection rate (P

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

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

243 etection rate (CDR) per 1000 women screened, false-negative rate per 1000 women screened, positive pr

244 , discriminative ability, false-positive and false-negative rates, positive predictive value (PPV), a

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

246 Although a high false-negative rate remains a challenge, our study demon

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

248 te (incorrect neoantigens predicted) and the false negative rate (strong-binding neoantigens missed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

261 ation-controlled transient elastography, the false negative rate was 3.3% and 18% would qualify for s

262 for the Study of Liver Diseases pathway, the false negative rate was 4.5%, but 50% would qualify for

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

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

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

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

267 ted mutations, and the resulting estimate of false negative rate was used to correct final mutation r

268 ded if the false-positive rate was <=20% and false-negative rate was <=35%.

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

270 The false-negative rate was 11.76%.

271 The false-negative rate was 35% (14.2% [two of 14] of patien

272 On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38% (CI, 18% to 65%).

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

274 A higher false-negative rate was associated with MAF slides (MAF:

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

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

277 The false-negative rate was lower: 31% (95% CI: 29%, 34%), 3

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

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

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

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

282 False negative rates were 6.8% (3 of 44 patients) and 29

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

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

285 False-negative rates were 40% (95% CI, 16.3%-67.7%) for

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

287 False-positive and false-negative rates were comparable between methods (P

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

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

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

291 False-negative rates were obtained for the DL risk score

292 False-negative rates were slightly lower for DBT (0.6 pe

293 False-negative rates were used to explore fairness.

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

295 Laboratory error indicated a negligible false negative rate when 12 qPCR replicates were used.

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

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

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

299 C reduced false positives by 25% at the same false-negative rate, while achieving a 66% reduction in

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