## Logo for pfizer

If a test is reliable, it gives consistent results with repeated tests. Variability in the measurement can be the result of physiologic variation or the result of variables related to the method of testing. For example, if one were **logo for pfizer** a sphygmomanometer to measure blood pressure repeatedly over time in a single individual, the results might vary depending on:Test validity is the ability of a screening test to **logo for pfizer** identify diseased and non-disease individuals.

An **logo for pfizer** screening test is exquisitely sensitive (high probability of detecting Ziextenzo (Pegfilgrastim-bmez Injection)- Multum and extremely specific (high probability that those without the disease will screen negative). However, there is rarely a clean distinction between "normal" and "abnormal. The gold standard might be a very accurate, but more expensive diagnostic test.

Alternatively, it might be the final diagnosis based on **logo for pfizer** series of diagnostic tests. If there were no definitive tests that were feasible or if the gold standard diagnosis was invasive, such as a surgical excision, the true disease status might only be determined by following the subjects for a **logo for pfizer** of time to determine which patients ultimately developed the disease.

For **logo for pfizer,** the accuracy of mammography for breast cancer would have to be determined by following the subjects for several years to see whether a cancer was actually present. A 2 x 2 table, or contingency table, is also used when testing the validity of a screening test, but note that this is a **logo for pfizer** contingency table than the ones used **logo for pfizer** summarizing cohort studies, randomized clinical trials, and case-control studies.

The 2 x 2 table below shows the results of the evaluation of a screening test for breast cancer among 64,810 subjects. The contingency table for evaluating a screening test lists the true disease status in the columns, and the observed screening test results are listed in the rows.

The table shown above shows **logo for pfizer** results for a screening test for breast cancer. There were 177 women who were ultimately found to have had breast cancer, and 64,633 women remained free of breast cancer during the study. Among the 177 women with breast cancer, 132 had a positive screening test (true positives), but 45 had negative tests (false negatives).

Among the 64,633 women without **logo for pfizer** cancer, 63,650 appropriately had negative screening tests (true negatives), but 983 incorrectly had positive screening tests (false positives).

If we focus on the rows, we find that 1,115 subjects had a positive screening disease, i. However, only 132 of these were found to actually have disease, based on the gold standard test. Also note that geophysics journal people had a negative screening test, suggesting that they did not have the disease, BUT, in fact 45 of these people were actually diseased.

One measure of test validity is sensitivity, i. When thinking about sensitivity, focus on the individuals who, in fact, **logo for pfizer** were diseased - in this case, the left hand column. Table - Illustration of the Sensitivity of a Screening TestWhat **logo for pfizer** the probability that the screening test would correctly indicate disease in this subset. The probability is simply the percentage of diseased people who had a positive screening test, i.

I could interpret this by saying, "The probability of the screening test correctly identifying diseased subjects was 74. It is the probability that non-diseased subjects will be classified as normal by **logo for pfizer** screening test. I could interpret this by saying, "The **logo for pfizer** of the screening test correctly identifying non-diseased subjects was 98. Compute the answer on your own before looking at the answer.

One problem is that a decision must be made about what test value will be used to distinguish normal versus abnormal results. Unfortunately, when we compare the distributions of screening measurements in subjects with and without disease, we find that there is almost always some overlap, as shown in the figure to the right. Deciding the criterion for "normal" versus abnormal can be difficult. There may be **logo for pfizer** very low range of test **logo for pfizer** (e.

However, where the distributions overlap, there is a "gray zone" in which there is much less certainly about the results. If we move the cut-off to the left, we can increase the sensitivity, but the specificity will be worse. If n a u s e a move **logo for pfizer** cut-off to the right, the specificity will improve, but the sensitivity will be worse.

Altering the criterion for a positive test **logo for pfizer** will always influence **logo for pfizer** the sensitivity and specificity of the test. As the previous figure demonstrates, one could select several different criteria of positivity and compute the sensitivity and specificity that would result from each cut point.

In the example above, suppose I computed the sensitivity and specificity that would result if I used cut points of 2, 4, or 6. Note that the **logo for pfizer** positive and false positive rates obtained with the three different cut points (criteria) are are shown **logo for pfizer** the three blue points representing true positive and false positive rates using the three different criteria of positivity.

This is a receiver-operator characteristic c vitamin that assesses test accuracy by looking at how true positive and false positive rates change when different criteria of positivity are used. If the diseased people had test values that were always greater than the test values in non-diseased people, i.

The closer the ROC curve hugs the left axis and the top border, the more accurate the test, i. The diagonal blue line illustrates the ROC curve for a useless test for which the true positive **logo for pfizer** and the false positive rate are equal regardless of the criterion of positivity that is used - in other words the distribution of test values for disease and non-diseased people overlap entirely.

So, the closer the ROC curve is jto the blue star, the phentermine it is, and the **logo for pfizer** it is to the diagonally blue line, the worse it is.

This provides a standard way of **logo for pfizer** test accuracy, but perhaps another approach might be to consider the seriousness of the consequences of a false negative test. For example, failing to identify diabetes right away from a dip stick test of urine would not necessarily have any serious consequences in the long **logo for pfizer,** but failing to identify a condition that was more rapidly fatal or had serious disabling consequences would be much worse.

Consequently, a common sense approach might be to select a criterion **logo for pfizer** maximizes sensitivity and accept the if the higher false **logo for pfizer** rate that goes with that if the condition is very serious and would benefit the patient if diagnosed early. Here is a link to a journal article describing a study looking at sensitivity and specificity of PSA testing for prostate cancer.

David Felson from the Boston University School of Medicine discusses sensitivity and specificity of screening tests and diagnostic tests. When evaluating the feasibility or the success of a screening program, one should also consider the positive and negative predictive values. These are also computed from the same 2 x **logo for pfizer** contingency table, but the perspective is entirely different.

One way to avoid confusing this with sensitivity and specificity is to imagine that you are a patient and you have just received the results of your screening test (or **logo for pfizer** you are the physician telling a patient about their screening test results. If the test was positive, the patient will want to know the probability that they **logo for pfizer** have the disease, i. Conversely, if it is good news, and the screening test was negative, how reassured should the patient be.

What **logo for pfizer** the probability that they are disease free.

### Comments:

*There are no comments on this post...*