ライフサイエンスコーパス: likelihood ratio

1 ity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.

2 tality with 94% sensitivity and 0.1 negative likelihood ratio.

3 ive predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios.

4 igher sensitivity, specificity, and superior likelihood ratios.

5 curacy, such as sensitivity, specificity, or likelihood ratios.

6 ty, generating sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.

7 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.

8 positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios.

9 ratio 213 [95% CI 13-infinity] and negative likelihood ratio 0.11 [0.04-0.32]).

10 positive likelihood ratio 4.78, and negative likelihood ratio 0.35.

11 .9%, positive predictive value 85%, negative likelihood ratio 0.7, and positive likelihood ratio 3.5.

12 tivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT.

13 aditional algorithm had the highest negative likelihood ratio (0.24), a missed diagnosis rate of 24.2

14 a low likelihood of an unfavourable outcome (likelihood ratio = 0.07, P < 0.001).

15 elihood ratio, 13 (95% CI, 4.4-38); negative likelihood ratio, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.33-0.97).

16 ve value, 80% negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio 1.54 to predict synucleinopathy.

17 e, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; summary positive likelihood ratio, 10.45; 95% CI, 3.37-32.43), bilateral

18 tive rate, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.07; positive likelihood ratio, 12.79; 95% CI, 5.35-30.62).

19 sensitivity, 46%; specificity, 97%; positive likelihood ratio, 13 (95% CI, 4.4-38); negative likeliho

20 d a high likelihood of unfavourable outcome (likelihood ratio = 14.4). By contrast, infants who never

21 nnot extend to reach the upper lip; positive likelihood ratio, 14 [95% CI, 8.9-22]; specificity, 0.96

22 of these CT findings were combined (positive likelihood ratios, 14.7 [95% CI: 7.1, 30.4] and 43.8 (95

23 evere adverse pregnancy outcomes (AUC: 0.64; likelihood ratio: 2.32; P = 0.39).

24 [93-99]) and diagnostically useful (positive likelihood ratio 213 [95% CI 13-infinity] and negative l

25 93.6% versus 80.9 [P = 0.028]), and positive likelihood ratio (25.1 versus 6.8 [P = 0.032]) than ADA.

26 negative likelihood ratio 0.7, and positive likelihood ratio 3.5.

27 1.30-23.62), as did seropositivity (positive likelihood ratio, 3.69 [1.67-8.16]; relative risk, 5.97

28 m at around 7.0-8.0 hours sleep (overweight: likelihood ratio = 32.7 p < 0.01; obesity: likelihood ra

29 sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.85, positive likelihood ratio 4.78, and negative likelihood ratio 0.3

30 tive rate, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06-0.23; positive likelihood ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.82-9.42).

31 : likelihood ratio = 32.7 p < 0.01; obesity: likelihood ratio = 40.4 p < 0.01).

32 negative predictive value (83%) and positive likelihood ratio (5.87) for the diagnosis of a nuclear D

33 disease development (relative risk/positive likelihood ratio, 5.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-23

34 tive rate, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.11; positive likelihood ratio, 5.58; 95% CI, 2.56-12.16), and elevate

35 of the chin or subjectively short; positive likelihood ratio, 6.0 [95% CI, 3.1-11]; specificity, 0.9

36 ental distance (range of <3-5.5 cm; positive likelihood ratio, 6.4 [95% CI, 4.1-10]; specificity, 0.9

37 tive rate, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.09; positive likelihood ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 2.52-18.38), and bilatera

38 tive rate, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.13; positive likelihood ratio, 7.11; 95% CI, 5.01-10.08), unfavorable

39 ersus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different.

40 tive rate, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.12; positive likelihood ratio, 8.85; 95% CI, 4.87-16.08), myoclonic s

41 findings based on the Wilson score (positive likelihood ratio, 9.1 [95% CI, 5.1-16]; specificity, 0.9

42 le low dimensional approximations of the log-likelihood ratio accounting for the effects of each indi

43 yses were used to calculate summary positive likelihood ratios across studies or univariate random-ef

44 accumulate switch evidence (in units of log-likelihood ratio) across trials and update their respons

45 receiver-operating characteristic curve and likelihood ratio analysis.

46 ctive value (NPV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios, analyzing subgroups of patients of di

47 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88) and as reflected by likelihood ratio and added value analyses.

48 flation in the median test statistics of the likelihood ratio and score tests for tests of variants w

49 The positive and negative likelihood ratio and the positive and negative predictiv

50 Parente2 is based on an embedded log-likelihood ratio and uses a model that accounts for link

51 sufficiently high sensitivity, low negative likelihood ratio, and correspondingly high negative pred

52 ificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of the (18)F

53 sitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 92 %, 7

54 he pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of optic

55 ed pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.

56 ficity, positive/negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and accuracy.

57 ion with outcomes, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and discrimination (concordance index

58 sitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and positive and negative predictive

59 sitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and post-test probability were calcul

60 sitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and predictive values of the tests we

61 predictive, and negative predictive values; likelihood ratios; and areas under the receiver operatin

62 uthenticity may be of forensic interest, the likelihood ratio approach, expressing the role of the fo

63 ction method that we call the Autoregressive Likelihood Ratio (ARLR) method.

64 estimate posttest probabilities according to likelihood ratios as well as pretest probabilities using

65 s an algorithm that maximizes an appropriate likelihood ratio at every step.

66 Their likelihood ratios, both negative and positive, were poor

67 ate metrics of prognostic model performance (likelihood ratio, C index, net reclassification, discrim

68 for patients not experiencing CI-AKI, with a likelihood ratio chi(2) of 5.973 (P=0.029).

69 RSClin provides more prognostic information (likelihood ratio chi(2)) for DR than RS or clinical-path

70 t prognostic information for all end points (likelihood ratio chi(2), 48.9 iDFS; P < .001; chi(2), 55

71 c peptides in men (DeltaC-statistic = 0.006; likelihood ratio chi-square = 146; p < 0.001), and after

72 roponins in women (DeltaC-statistic = 0.003; likelihood ratio chi-square = 73; p < 0.001).

73 th groups by t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or likelihood ratio chi-square test.

74 d history of secondary generalized seizures (likelihood-ratio chi(2), P < 0.05) however there was no

75 The LPIR score improved the model likelihood ratio (chi2 = 18.23; P < .001) and categorica

76 asures (stepwise binary logistic regression, likelihood ratio chi21 = 19.8; P < .001).

77 n-subject variability across the 3 products (likelihood ratios, chi22 for log-transformed variables:

78 lassic multivariate test based on a modified likelihood ratio criterion.

79 ificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and AUC (with 9

80 s compared using patient-specific diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR) and binary net reclassification i

81 ed 13 negative risk markers using diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLRs), which model the change in risk

82 eature matrix, estimating ten distance-based likelihood ratio features, and scoring candidate causal

83 orithm had 98% sensitivity and 0.04 negative likelihood ratio for 30-day oxygen requirement.

84 ver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and likelihood ratio for a composite of severe adverse pregn

85 For both Ni and Pd, the likelihood ratio for a positive PT markedly increased wi

86 hly probable tuberculosis, giving a negative likelihood ratio for all tuberculosis cases of 0.13 (95%

87 hat forensic scientists can use to calculate likelihood ratios for complex DNA profiles.

88 uals to predict positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR, and likelihood ratios for each CO-RADS score were used for r

89 critical parameters, Lab Retriever computes likelihood ratios for hypotheses that can include up to

90 96.4%, 92.9%, and 71.4% and their positivity likelihood ratios for IPD were 14.5, 18.6, and 21.4, res

91 er operating characteristic curve (AUCs) and likelihood ratios for mTBI and development of PTM.

92 However, the positive and negative likelihood ratios for new or progressive multiple organ

93 The negative likelihood ratios for the semiquantitative and quantitat

94 to account for this uncertainty is to use a likelihood ratio framework to compare the probability of

95 While researchers favor the likelihood ratio framework, few open-source software sol

96 The rule-in arms of both algorithms had a likelihood ratio >10.

97 he order-statistic literature to formulate a likelihood-ratio hypothesis test and P-value for testing

98 he software SOLOMON is improved by using the likelihood ratio instead of an ad hoc statistic.

99 LIkelihood Ratio Interpretation of Clinical AbnormaLitie

100 nd 97.7%, respectively, whereas the positive likelihood ratio is 9.9 and the positive predictive valu

101 essed genes, quantified by an integrated log-likelihood ratio (LLR) score weighted for each dataset.

102 ccumulate evidence in units of logarithms of likelihood ratios (logLR) to a desired level.

103 chment for genomic disorder regions (30/253, likelihood ratio (LR) +1.85, P = 0.0017).

104 was to investigate the applicability of the likelihood ratio (LR) approach for verifying the authent

105 gical models in a resampling procedure using likelihood ratio (LR) chi(2) statistics.

106 ach to genomic diagnostics that exploits the likelihood ratio (LR) framework to provide an estimate o

107 Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) of findings for the diagnosis of A

108 nificant levels; For [Formula: see text] the likelihood ratio (LR) test was conducted, and its P valu

109 test-a score test-with a recently developed likelihood ratio (LR) test.

110 egative predictive value (NPV), and positive likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated.

111 are reported with sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and 95% confidence interval, whic

112 ectively, 81% and 77%, indicating a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.5 and a negative likelihood

113 al negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (L

114 to predict PNF (Se=83.3%, SP=74.3%, positive likelihood ratio (LR+)=3.65, negative likelihood ratio (

115 likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.5 and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.25.

116 ositive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were calculated comparing CSG res

117 sitive likelihood ratio (LR+)=3.65, negative likelihood ratio (LR-)=0.25, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR)

118 er the curve (AUC) and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) for exhaled VOC profiles were cal

119 teristics by using predictive probabilities, likelihood ratios (LR), and area under the curve receive

120 oled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled likelihood ratios (LR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio, an

121 he pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR),

122 thma predictive tools have moderate positive likelihood ratios (+LR) but high negative likelihood rat

123 y, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and

124 ve likelihood ratios (+LR) but high negative likelihood ratios (-LR) based on their recommended cut-o

125 ing clinical predictor to rule out (negative likelihood ratio [LR-] = 0.4) and rule in (LR+ = 2.6) UT

126 s likely to have played <4.5 years (negative likelihood ratio [LR] = 0.102, 95% CI = 0.100-0.105) and

127 factor 5 years after diagnosis (univariable: likelihood ratio [LR] chi(2) = 94.12, bivariable: LR chi

128 ation findings suggestive of skull fracture (likelihood ratio [LR], 16; 95% CI, 3.1-59; specificity,

129 e absence of any of these signs or symptoms (likelihood ratio [LR]- = 0.12 [0.19] for adult [pediatri

130 acteristics, including positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) and patient triage assignation.

131 00 g or 90th centile) at birth with positive likelihood ratios (LRs) of 8.74 (95% confidence interval

132 males with lower urinary tract symptoms, the likelihood ratios (LRs) of individual symptoms and quest

133 d to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs), and meta-analysis was used to c

134 acy was measured using positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), C statistics, and other operati

135 AMS prevalence, likelihood ratios (LRs), sensitivity, and specificity of

136 Likelihood ratios (LRs), sensitivity, and specificity we

137 Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs).

138 The package includes two functions, likelihood ratio Mann-Whitney (LRMW) and Tree Assembling

139 rovide a probabilistic visual map (i.e., log likelihood ratio map) of the significant differences bet

140 acterized by a high specificity and positive likelihood ratio, may indicate increased intracranial pr

141 Likelihood ratio meta-analyses were performed to generat

142 ficity, accuracy, likelihood ratio positive, likelihood ratio negative, area under the receiver opera

143 imates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnos

144 ll pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic

145 following sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive pr

146 ositive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of the NAA tests against culture

147 The negative likelihood ratio of 0.094 for OA/US indicates a negative

148 f 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.95) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.10 (CI, 0.06 to 0.19) for CRC, whe

149 ratio of 78 (95% CI, 29-210) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.20 (95% CI, 0.11-0.37).

150 atio of 6.9 (95% CI, 5.5-8.8) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.21-0.44) using the s

151 atio of 6.8 (95% CI, 4.7-9.9) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.27-0.40).

152 atio of 5.2 (95% CI, 3.6-7.5) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.29-0.37) using score

153 of 8.49 (95% CI, 5.56-12.96) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.22-0.48).

154 s) than female (35.1%), with an age-adjusted likelihood ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [CI],

155 nvasive infection, achieving a high positive likelihood ratio of 12.8.

156 ositive predictive value of 29% and positive likelihood ratio of 13.

157 ty of 0.95 (CI, 0.94 to 0.96) and a positive likelihood ratio of 15.49 (CI, 9.82 to 22.39).

158 predicting shoulder dystocia with a positive likelihood ratio of 2.12 (95% CI 1.34-3.35).

159 y of 83%, specificity of 96%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 20.8.

160 ptable predictive properties for CSU, with a likelihood ratio of 3.9.

161 dified Mallampati score (>=3) had a positive likelihood ratio of 4.1 (95% CI, 3.0-5.6; specificity, 0

162 Seventy-one percent of non-smokers (positive likelihood ratio of 4.22) and 88% of smokers (positive l

163 ratio of 4.22) and 88% of smokers (positive likelihood ratio of 5.00) with positive test results at

164 The 17-item PTSD Checklist has a positive likelihood ratio of 5.2 (95% CI, 3.6-7.5) and a negative

165 city of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.93), a positive likelihood ratio of 6.8 (95% CI, 4.7-9.9) and a negative

166 The 4-item PC-PTSD has a positive likelihood ratio of 6.9 (95% CI, 5.5-8.8) and a negative

167 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio of 63%, 72%, and 0.56, respectively, an

168 atient Health Questionnaire, with a positive likelihood ratio of 78 (95% CI, 29-210) and a negative l

169 ity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio of 78%, 70%, and 3.77, respectively.

170 9.0%, a sensitivity of 78.5%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 79.9.

171 city of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95), a positive likelihood ratio of 8.49 (95% CI, 5.56-12.96) and a nega

172 specificity of 98.81 (93.54-99.97), positive likelihood ratio of 81.60 and an area under the curve of

173 The sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio of class I ranking HRCT criteria to dia

174 ictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio of every clinical characteristic were c

175 Specificity and positive likelihood ratio of inhibitory activity for indicating r

176 ity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of optic nerve ultrasonography in patie

177 FIPSA maximizes the likelihood ratio of the contingency table of the allele

178 , the positive predictive value and positive-likelihood ratio of the primary-screening algorithm were

179 , the sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of this profile was 78.5%, 99.6%, and 1

180 -5.1) and 4.7 (95% CI, 2.5-8.7) and negative likelihood ratios of 0.2 (95% CI, .07-.8) and 0.4 (95% C

181 trategy for HG-AIN+ histology, with positive likelihood ratios of 3.4 (95% CI, 2.3-5.1) and 4.7 (95%

182 , and 4.48 (95% CI, 3.04-6.60), and positive likelihood ratios of 3.5 (95% CI, 2.6-4.8), 4.1 (95% CI,

183 d 4.38 kUA /l, respectively, showed positive likelihood ratios of 4.3 and 10.9 for the identification

184 100% specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 8.76/.13, whereas cortical GSH diff

185 100% specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 9.17/.08.

186 The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios of catheter malposition by ultrasound

187 predictive values, and negative and positive likelihood ratios of clinician assessments.

188 tive predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratios of DUS against reference standard CTA.

189 esian combination of pretest probability and likelihood ratios of first- and second-line immunoassays

190 ally, the percentages on memory test and the likelihood ratios of identifying novel stimuli under unc

191 We calculated likelihood ratios of result intervals and cutoff values

192 Only the negative likelihood-ratio of EMA was low enough (0.097) to effect

193 imates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (N

194 ting the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, likelihood ratio positive, likelihood ratio negative, ar

195 ificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive predictive value and negative

196 Log10-likelihood ratios provide a principled basis for the acc

197 atios ranged from 2.52 to 5.53, and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.21 to 0.48 (moderate SOE

198 Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 2.52 to 5.53, and negative

199 t diagnostic accuracy; however, the positive likelihood ratio remained low (<1.4).

200 Five of the 6 BPA activities significantly (likelihood ratio rest, P <= .05) contributed to the prot

201 ity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio (ruling in EPE) were 64%, 64%, and 2.15

202 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio (ruling out EPE) were 77%, 77%, and 0.3

203 PL algorithm first uses a threshold on an rt likelihood ratio score to remove candidate corresponding

204 lutionary rate profiling (GERP) and sitewise likelihood-ratio (SLR) scores.

205 e model significantly as measured by the log likelihood ratio statistic (p < 0.001).

206 y promising gene at the location of the peak likelihood ratio statistic score.

207 The likelihood ratio statistic was used to assess the added

208 spike trains can be readily assessed via the likelihood ratio statistic.

209 limiting) null distribution of the classical likelihood-ratio statistic is often intractable when use

210 is based on a modified version of the usual likelihood-ratio statistic that we call "the split likel

211 ggested a reasonably good fit for the model (likelihood-ratio statistic: 2.81, P = 0.094), providing

212 ics, and a parametric method, multi-platform likelihood ratio statistics.

213 utlier trQTLs for cross-population composite likelihood ratio, suggesting that incorporation of conte

214 ial versus double-exponential) using the log-likelihood ratio technique, which shows whether addition

215 find evidence for genotype-age interaction (likelihood ratio test (LRT) = 73.58, degrees of freedom

216 ient likelihood based methods including both likelihood ratio test (LRT) and score test have been pro

217 season in the older children in all models [likelihood ratio test (LRT) chi2(2) = 7.1, p = 0.03; ful

218 and variance heterogeneities (SMVT), but the likelihood ratio test (LRT) severely inflated type I err

219 s for 2-drug combinations is amenable to the Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT).

220 efugee migrants (HR: 4.88; 95% CI 3.71-6.41; likelihood ratio test [LRT]: p = 0.01).

221 overload (P = 3 x 10(-6) ; P = 0.033 by the likelihood ratio test after correction for multiple comp

222 l and flexible analytic framework based on a likelihood ratio test and a model selection procedure.

223 the models was assessed with the use of the likelihood ratio test and partial R(2) statistics.Test s

224 We compare the performance of both the likelihood ratio test and Wald test under a variety of s

225 The likelihood ratio test derived here is a direct, transpar

226 We develop a likelihood ratio test for the analysis of the expression

227 We developed a bootstrap likelihood ratio test for the interpretation of the effe

228 e nonzero effects were further identified by likelihood ratio test for true QTL identification.

229 nonzero effects were further identified by a likelihood ratio test for true QTN detection.

230 Likelihood ratio test indicated incremental value of LA

231 veloped to estimate model coefficients and a likelihood ratio test is constructed for differential ab

232 The use of either the likelihood ratio test or the score test is likely to lea

233 ted in significant improvement in model fit (likelihood ratio test P < .0001) and C statistic (increa

234 da, and 16.1 breaths per min higher in Peru (likelihood ratio test p<0.0001).

235 l-known clinical predictors of CRT response (likelihood ratio test P<0.001).

236 nstrated significantly improved calibration (likelihood ratio test P=0.038).

237 zard ratio for death 0.56, 95% CI 0.45-0.69; likelihood ratio test p=3.4 x 10(-9), after adjustment f

238 esis testing, we proposed a novel sequential likelihood ratio test procedure, which iteratively remov

239 The likelihood ratio test showed a significant incremental p

240 After Bonferroni correction, the joint-likelihood ratio test suggested interactions on serum tr

241 The first method is a likelihood ratio test that is readily available on a pat

242 the dispersion parameter in the model and a likelihood ratio test to identify differentially express

243 mpared the performance of both Wald test and likelihood ratio test under different scenarios.

244 tus of ERBB2 was added to the model, and the likelihood ratio test was used to determine improvement

245 by ethnic group were identified (all p<0.05 likelihood ratio test).

246 l-pathological factors alone (both P < .001, likelihood ratio test).

247 e last step after checking for collinearity, likelihood ratio test, c index, and clinical weight at e

248 s and females into account: the chi(2) test, likelihood ratio test, exact test and permutation test.

249 g., modifier genes, unique exposures; 6.8%) (likelihood ratio test, P < 0.001).

250 J-shaped relationship was found for BMI (the likelihood ratio test, P <0.001).

251 with ALK-CNG on crizotinib and a longer PFS (likelihood ratio test, P = 0.025).

252 ee most commonly used association tests: the likelihood ratio test, the Wald test and the score test

253 s in mortality between ethnic groups using a likelihood ratio test, Theil's index, and between-group

254 iation with the trait by empirical Bayes and likelihood ratio test.

255 Heterogeneity was evaluated by likelihood ratio test.

256 w bootstrap support and the other computes a likelihood ratio test.

257 -0.17 compared with betastandardized: -0.04; likelihood ratio test: P < 0.001).

258 ite experience and procedural success rates (likelihood ratio test=141.12, df=15, P<0.001) but no rel

259 experience and major adverse cardiac event (likelihood ratio test=19.12, df=15, P=0.208).

260 er than classically estimated, and (iii) the likelihood-ratio test (LRT) is not distributed as a chi(

261 PCM implements a likelihood-ratio test and therefore provides the most po

262 A new likelihood-ratio test is also introduced to test for the

263 Specifically, we propose a likelihood-ratio test of whether a given individual is p

264 rmation are optimally selected by Bartlett's likelihood-ratio test so that the populations attain hom

265 nt has relaxed after gene duplication with a likelihood-ratio test that can account for heterogeneity

266 ormula: see text] scenarios and be used as a likelihood-ratio test to test for the equality of [Formu

267 hood-ratio statistic that we call "the split likelihood-ratio test" (split LRT) statistic.

268 Using a log-likelihood-ratio test, our results also show that the in

269 ransforming data with the help of Bartlett's likelihood-ratio test.

270 ting the homoskedasticity of clusters with a likelihood-ratio test.

271 Likelihood ratio testing revealed incremental value for

272 to the gene expression level and constructed likelihood ratio tests (LRT) to test for eGene in the Ge

273 Likelihood ratio tests were used to compare the effect o

274 Likelihood ratio tests were used to test for heterogenei

275 Using likelihood ratio tests, we show that the ZINB distributi

276 d clinical-pathological features alone using likelihood ratio tests.

277 ostic model comparisons were performed using likelihood-ratio tests between each specified nominal lo

278 es, our method can also be used, by means of likelihood-ratio tests, to distinguish between alternati

279 ment has high sensitivity and a low negative likelihood ratio that may rule out increased intracrania

280 TTE was superior in terms of higher positive likelihood ratio values (LR+ = 106.61, 95% CI = 15.09-75

281 negative predictive value was 99.5% and the likelihood ratio was 0.04 with the extended algorithm ve

282 was 0.40 (CI, 0.33 to 0.47) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.67 (CI, 0.57 to 0.78) at 10 ug/g,

283 as 81.8% and specificity 93.9%, the positive likelihood ratio was 13.3, positive predictive value was

284 The positive likelihood ratio was 19.8.

285 34), respectively; the positive and negative likelihood ratio was 4.3 and 0.24 respectively; the area

286 The positive likelihood ratio was 4.87 (95% CI, 2.9-9.6).

287 Positive likelihood ratio was 5.7 for color Doppler US, 4.3 for c

288 was 0.95 (CI, 0.94 to 0.96) and the positive likelihood ratio was 5.86 (CI, 3.77 to 8.97) at greater

289 fication rate, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio were calculated.

290 itivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratio were determined.

291 ng/mL for PCT and 20 mg/L for CRP, negative likelihood ratios were 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5) for identif

292 threshold of 10 ug/g; positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.13 and 0.11, respectively.

293 The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.97 and 0.09, respectively.

294 Positive likelihood ratios were between 5 and 10 for amblyopia ri

295 predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated.

296 predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were compared.

297 Positive likelihood ratios were high when two or three of these C

298 standard, areas under ROC curves (AUCs) and likelihood-ratios were calculated to estimate the perfor

299 m of BCLC system had larger linear trend and likelihood ratio X(2).

300 sity (XP-EHH) and cross-population composite likelihood ratio (XP-CLR), and further analyzed the resu