3 ms·
This is not completely correct. Sensitivity (87% in this case) is not same as accuracy, nor is specificity (89.5% in this case) same as true negative rate. Sen
by ksolanki 8y ago
This is not completely correct. Sensitivity (87% in this case) is not same as accuracy, nor is specificity (89.5% in this case) same as true negative rate.
Sensitivity generally gives an indication of safety of a medical device, and specificity gives a general indication of effectiveness.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoThe link changed since I posted my comment :) The original article on Verge reported "87% accuracy" and 90% what sounded like TNR. The new link points to an FDA page that makes it more likely that ".87" is actually sensitivity: Dx-DR was able to correctly identify the presence of more than mild diabetic retinopathy 87.4 percent of the time and was able to correctly identify those patients who did not have more than mild diabetic retinopathy 89.5 percent of the time. So, I guess, something like this: Predicted + Predicted - Total Actual + 393 57 450 Actual - 47 403 450 ------------------------------------- Total 440 460 900 Accuracy: 0.8844 Error: 0.1156 True Positive Rate: 0.8733 True Negative Rate: 0.8956 Precision: 0.8932 Recall (TPR): 0.8733 F-Score: 0.8831 Closest I can get with exactly 900 cases :0
- ksolanki 8y agoThanks for this analysis. The balance in real world is more like 20-80, ie 20% of typically screened patients would have referable retinopathy (screen positive).