So if 5% of the population have had it then using 98.5% and 99.5% figures we get:- -ve result would be 99.973% accurate +ve result would be 91.284% accurate If 1% of the population have had it then:- -ve would be 99.995% accurate +ve would be 66.779% accurate If 10% of the population have had it then:- -ve would be 99.944% accurate +ve would be 95.673% accurate
So if 5% of the population have had it then using 98.5% and 99.5% figures we get:-
-ve result would be 99.973% accurate +ve result would be 91.284% accurate If 1% of the population have had it then:- -ve would be 99.995% accurate +ve would be 66.779% accurate If 10% of the population have had it then:- -ve would be 99.944% accurate +ve would be 95.673% accurate
-ve result would be 99.973% accurate +ve result would be 91.284% accurate
If 1% of the population have had it then:- -ve would be 99.995% accurate +ve would be 66.779% accurate
If 10% of the population have had it then:- -ve would be 99.944% accurate +ve would be 95.673% accurate
What are you doing to get a shift in sensitivity/specificity based on an outside factor?
Bayesian statistics as described on the previous page. Interesting stuff.
@frankenbike started
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
What are you doing to get a shift in sensitivity/specificity based on an outside factor?