ライフサイエンスコーパス: likelihood ratio

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

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

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

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

5 ive predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios.

6 igher sensitivity, specificity, and superior likelihood ratios.

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

8 .9%, positive predictive value 85%, negative likelihood ratio 0.7, and positive likelihood ratio 3.5.

9 cutoff </= 182 pg/mL had the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.0) and was the best to rule out HF-r

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

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

12 ; positive likelihood ratio = 3.08; negative likelihood ratio = 0.056; P < 0.001].

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

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

15 sensitivity (0.79), specificity (0.53), and likelihood ratios (1.67, 0.39).

16 8; specificity, 0.728; positive and negative likelihood ratios, 1.283 and 1.084, respectively).

17 icity of 93% with good positive and negative likelihood ratios (10.8 and 0.29, respectively).

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

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

20 of use was also significant at the 5% level (likelihood ratio = 13.39; p = .010).

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

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

23 ostic accuracy 99%) had the highest positive likelihood ratio (168.1); that is, it was the best to ru

24 pecificity (0.68), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (2.73, 0.20).

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

26 [93-99]) and diagnostically useful (positive likelihood ratio 213 [95% CI 13-infinity] and negative l

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

28 negative predictive value = 97.8%; positive likelihood ratio = 3.08; negative likelihood ratio = 0.0

29 1.30-23.62), as did seropositivity (positive likelihood ratio, 3.69 [1.67-8.16]; relative risk, 5.97

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

31 nd the Lok index had slightly lower positive likelihood ratios (4.8 and 4.4, respectively).

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

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

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

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

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

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 ificity, positive predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, accuracy (overall fraction correct), a

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

43 receiver-operating characteristic curve and likelihood ratio analysis.

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

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

46 eloped based on the optimality theory of the likelihood ratio and therefore theoretically could form

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

48 azard ratio (HR) analysis was performed, and likelihood ratios and positive and negative predictive v

49 t probability of disease from the calculated likelihood ratios and pretest probability of disease.

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

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

52 he pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FITs

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

54 ive predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and absolute rates of recommended car

55 eiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), likelihood ratios, and sensitivities/specificities adjus

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

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

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

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

60 and holiday domicile were the same (p=0.007, likelihood ratio chi-square test).

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

62 l variables, we calculated the change in the likelihood-ratio chi(2) (LR-Deltachi(2)) from Cox propor

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

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

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

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

67 Likelihood ratios could be determined for continuous val

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

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

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

71 a clinical diagnostic capacity, the assay's likelihood ratios dramatically change an individual's pr

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

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

74 Compared with never-smokers, the smokers' likelihood ratio for implant failure was 4.68, 6.40 for

75 value (NPV) was of 100% [89.4-100], and the Likelihood Ratio for Negative Test (LR-) was of 0 [0.0-0

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

77 Likelihood ratios for glaucoma diagnosis were estimated

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

79 96.4%, 92.9%, and 71.4% and their positivity likelihood ratios for IPD were 14.5, 18.6, and 21.4, res

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

81 The methodology allowed calculation of likelihood ratios for specific RNFL thickness values.

82 We calculate likelihood ratios for the non-genetic and genetic data s

83 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for the OGCT at a threshold of 7.8 mmo

84 The negative likelihood ratios for the semiquantitative and quantitat

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

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

87 atios ranged from 2.34 to 24.25 and negative likelihood ratios from 0.02 to 0.61.

88 19 (Rome II) to 3.39 (Manning), and negative likelihood ratios from 0.06 (Rome I) to 0.47 (Manning).

89 ociated with positive likelihood ratios (ie, likelihood ratios greater than 1), whereas RNFL thicknes

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

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

92 er than 86 mum were associated with positive likelihood ratios (ie, likelihood ratios greater than 1)

93 er than 86 mum were associated with negative likelihood ratios (ie, likelihood ratios smaller than 1)

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

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

96 The likelihood ratio is then calculated to test for the effe

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

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

99 tive predictive value, area under the curve, likelihood ratio (LR) + and LR-of 81, 83, 90, 70, 78, 4.

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

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

102 ed, the likelihood for POAG increased with a likelihood ratio (LR) of 14 (95% CI, 5.3-39) for CDR of

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

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

105 Likelihood ratio (LR) tests and concordance indices (c i

106 on ultrasonography; specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated to account for lun

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

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

109 onents of the patient history had a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) less than 1.5.

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

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

112 Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR) and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

119 The presence of a seat belt sign (likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.6-9.9), rebound tendernes

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

121 ea was nocturnal choking or gasping (summary likelihood ratio [LR], 3.3; 95% CI, 2.1-4.6) when the di

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

123 ence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 1.08; chi-square likelihood ratio [LRchi(2)]: 15.2; p = 0.0001), diabetes

124 g correct, which are derived from calculated likelihood ratios (LRs) by combining structural, functio

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

126 Likelihood ratios (LRs) of symptoms and signs of RCD or

127 mean specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined by using a bivar

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

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

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

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

132 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), with 95% confidence intervals (

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

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

135 and a likelihood ratio positive of 86 with a likelihood ratio negative of 0.00.

136 and a likelihood ratio positive of 87 with a likelihood ratio negative of 0.01.

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

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

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

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

141 sitive likelihood ratios (PLR), and negative likelihood ratios (NLR).

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

143 atio of 5.1 (95% CI, 4.3-6.0) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25).

144 nsitivity of 93% (CI: 69-100%), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.13, with a negative predictive val

145 dence interval [CI], 85-98%) with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.33).

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

147 ratio of 3.4 (95% CI, 1.2-9.5), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.14-0.39).

148 was lower (89%, CI: 67-95%), with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.24.

149 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

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

151 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

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

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

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

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

156 19%, a specificity of 99.9%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 242 and conservatively predicted an

157 nsitivity 85.7%, specificity 96.9%, positive likelihood ratio of 27 to detect viable cysts).

158 curve of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), positive likelihood ratio of 3.4 (95% CI, 1.2-9.5), and negative

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

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

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

162 sorder Scale 7 Item (GAD-7), with a positive likelihood ratio of 5.1 (95% CI, 4.3-6.0) and a negative

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

164 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

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

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

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

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

169 9.0%, a sensitivity of 78.5%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 79.9.

170 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

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

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

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

174 ity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FITs for CRC were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69

175 The likelihood ratio of the CAM-ICU in the diagnosis of deli

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

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

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

179 -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

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

181 , 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,

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

183 dex, APRI, and Hepascore had median positive likelihood ratios of 5 to 10 and AUROCs of 0.80 or great

184 broTest, and Forns index had median positive likelihood ratios of 5 to 10 at commonly used cutoffs an

185 100% specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 8.76/.13, whereas cortical GSH diff

186 100% specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 9.17/.08.

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

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

189 We calculated absolute risks and likelihood ratios of sICH per increasing score points.

190 outcomes included the positive and negative likelihood ratios of the PVS for identifying the targete

191 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of the SureSight Autorefractor for the

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

193 In the training set, the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of malignancy and kappa values we

194 rating characteristic (ROC) curves, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), and negative likelihood ratios

195 e values of 99% and 100%, respectively and a likelihood ratio positive of 86 with a likelihood ratio

196 ve values of 99% and 98%, respectively and a likelihood ratio positive of 87 with a likelihood ratio

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

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

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

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

201 Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 2.34 to 24.25 and negative

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

203 Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 3.19 (Rome II) to 3.39 (Ma

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

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

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

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

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

209 ociated with negative likelihood ratios (ie, likelihood ratios smaller than 1).

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

211 ificantly influenced by the rs2494732 locus (likelihood ratio statistic for the interaction = 8.54; p

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

213 The likelihood ratio statistic was used to assess the added

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

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

216 e and lifetime sex partners was tested using likelihood ratio statistics.

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

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

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

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

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

222 ure proportion of chi-square distribution of likelihood ratio test (LRT) statistics.

223 and devise a testing procedure based on the likelihood ratio test (LRT).

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

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

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

227 Using this model with both the likelihood ratio test and score test, we find that the f

228 We propose a change-point model based on a likelihood ratio test for detecting 3'UTR switching.

229 In this article, the authors develop a likelihood ratio test for detecting additive interaction

230 Based on this model, we derive a combined likelihood ratio test for differential expression that i

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

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

233 iscrimination improvement are similar to the likelihood ratio test in nested models and may be overin

234 Likelihood ratio test indicated incremental value of LA

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

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

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

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

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

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

241 was a powerful prognostic variable, and the likelihood ratio test revealed that the prognostic accur

242 The likelihood ratio test showed a significant incremental p

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

244 We compared screening groups with a likelihood ratio test that combined step changes and cha

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

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

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

248 her daily RN hours per resident (P = .007 by likelihood ratio test); the increase in hospitalization

249 SS-R, using the Cox regression model and the likelihood ratio test, a significantly higher predictive

250 by improvement in the McFadden pseudo-R(2), likelihood ratio test, and c index.

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

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

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

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

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

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

257 istical interactions were assessed using the likelihood ratio test.

258 Heterogeneity was evaluated by likelihood ratio test.

259 -0.17 compared with betastandardized: -0.04; likelihood ratio test: P < 0.001).

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

261 A likelihood-ratio test comparing the 2 models showed that

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

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

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

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

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

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

268 Likelihood ratio testing revealed incremental value for

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

270 me, we conducted 11 sequential Poisson-based likelihood ratio tests during September 2008-January 201

271 elop likelihood-based statistical models and likelihood ratio tests to test for association between c

272 Likelihood ratio tests were used to compare the effect o

273 Likelihood ratio tests were used to test for heterogenei

274 e evaluated by using logistic regression and likelihood ratio tests.

275 A) software for fitting mvLMMs and computing likelihood ratio tests.

276 proportional hazards regression and partial likelihood ratio tests.

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

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

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

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

281 The positive likelihood ratio was 19.8.

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

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

284 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated to determine ability of

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

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

287 Corresponding pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 20.0 (95% CI, 6.9-58.4; I = 87.7%

288 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratios were 58%-73%, 84%-89%, and 0.3-0.5, re

289 ity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratios were 71%-84%, 49%-63%, and 2.-3.44, re

290 Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios were also assessed as outcomes of diag

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

292 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using bivariate random

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

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

295 Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were evaluated for various combination

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

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

298 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were c

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