Thus, to calculate an actual false accusation rate, we need data for three values in equation (4): the drug use rate for the target group of workers; the false positive rate
of the laboratory doing the tests; and the true positive rate of the laboratory doing the tests.
By estimating confidence of signatures generated from each frame and using the confidence for sequence identification, the technology achieves a high detection rate (*6) with a very low false positive rate
The ability to measure multiple analytes in the same analysis enabled the calculation of the phenylalanine/tyrosine molar ratio, which reduced false positive rates
The sensitivity of Harmony was significantly higher with a false positive rate
90-fold lower than standard screening.
MSS has a false positive rate
of approximately 5% and a false negative rate of up to 15%.
Both the CARE and NEXT trials also evaluated cfDNA testing vs standard screening for diagnosis of trisomy 13 and 18 and found higher PPVs and lower false positive rates
for cfDNA compared with traditional screening.
Figure 6.5 illustrates the results of false positive rate
on matching the patterns using RPPM method is compared with two state-of-the-art methods SVD and MSR.
By setting a false positive rate
of one per million non-malicious web links, deep-learning can achieve a detection rate of 72 per cent for new malicious web links that do not appear on previously announced threat lists.
Comparison of SIS and Hysteroscopy; SIS and Hysteroscopy with Respect to Histopathoiogicaliy Proved Morphological Lesion in Uterus Characteristics Tested SIS and Hysteroscopy Overall Normal Polyp Sensitivity 100 96.29 96.29 Specificity 95.34 97.14 97.14 Positive predictive value(PPV) 96.42 92.85 92.85 Negative predictive value(NPV) 100 98.55 98.55 False Positive Rate
(FPR) 4.65 2.85 2.85 False Negative rate(FNR) 0 3.7 3.7 Concordance (Accuracy) 97.93 96.9 96.9 Likelihood ratio(LR) 194.964 89.86 89.86 Fisher's Exact Test P Value <0.001 <0.01 <0.01 Characteristics Tested SIS and Hysteroscopy S.
The false positive rate
in the present study was 22.72%.
In the experiments, LTM reached the minimum false positive rate
of 0.0046% when FBA reached only 0.0367%, which means that LTM has up to 500% better detection score than the classic FBA method with the similar level of false positive rates
Finally, the tool examines the false positive rate
across different groups and enforces a user-determined equal rate of false positives across all groups.