1naresh
Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) ) 1nareshArray ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) )PPV and NPV for time-of-flight MR imaging as a screening test for complete obliteration for various disease-prevalence valuesa
Disease Prevalence PPV NPV 0.1 30.8% 95.2% 0.2 50.0% 89.8% 0.3 63.2% 83.7% 0.4 72.7% 76.7% 0.5 80.0% 68.8% 0.6 85.7% 59.5% 0.667b 88.9% 52.3% 0.7 90.3% 48.5%
↵a Disease prevalence represents the pretest probability of complete obliteration without the time-of-flight MR imaging results. PPV represents the posttest probability of complete obliteration based on a screening test with 61.5% sensitivity and 84.6% specificity.
↵b Sample estimate by reader 1 was 67% (78/117) in Buis et al.1