PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15668851

[Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value].

H Faller
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

What does it mean that a screening test has a sensitivity of 80 % and a specificity of 80 %? What conclusion can be drawn as to the probability of a patient tested positive having the target disorder? Is this probability dependent on the prevalence of the target disorder? These are the questions addressed in the present paper. The classical concepts of sensitivity and specificity are presented as well as the more modern and clinically relevant concepts of the predictive values of a positive and a negative test. The author employs different didactic methods such as 2 x 2 tables, graphical illustrations and natural frequencies for elaborating on these often intermixed concepts in a clear and easily understandable way.

Explore related subjects

ComorbidityComputer GraphicsDepressive DisorderGermanyHumansMass ScreeningMental DisordersPredictive Value of TestsProbabilityROC CurveEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Faller. 2005. [Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value].. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-834624

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessing the comorbidity between asthma and depression through polygenic risk scoring and time-to-event models.

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma have an increased risk of developing depression, affecting their quality of life. To date, the processes contributing to this comorbidity remain unclear. METHODS: We integrated two large genome-wide association studies (88,486 patients with asthma and 447,859 controls; 412,024 patients with depression and 1,587,577 controls) with cross-sectional and longitudinal information available from the All of Us Research Program (N = 87,167) through polygenic risk scoring (PRS), Cox proportional-hazards models, one-sample Mendelian randomization (MR), and gene-set and drug-repurposing analyses. RESULTS: We observed that depression PRS was associated with increased asthma risk (hazard ratio, HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.09-1.17), also when accounting for comorbidity status (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.04-1.12). Conversely, the effect of asthma PRS was null after accounting for comorbidity status. One-sample MR analysis showed an effect of depression genetic liability on asthma, ranging from beta = 0.36 ± 0.03 when considering a linear relationship to beta = 3.21 ± 0.31 when considering possible nonlinear relationships. Conversely, the effect of asthma genetic risk on depression was null after accounting for potential confounders. The gene-set analyses showed that asthma and depression polygenic risks share biological processes, molecular functions, and cellular components related to the immune system and the lung-brain axis. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic predisposition contributes to asthma-depression comorbidity through direct effects and shared pathogenic processes. These findings highlight the potential to develop targeted interventions to prevent and treat the co-occurrence of respiratory and neuropsychiatric disorders.

Comorbidity↗