4 ms·
Accuracy is a nonsense word in this context Tests have a sensitivity (1 - percentage of false negatives) and specificity (1 - percentage of false positives) "
by shawabawa3 1y ago
Accuracy is a nonsense word in this context
Tests have a sensitivity (1 - percentage of false negatives) and specificity (1 - percentage of false positives)
"Accuracy" usually refers to sensitivity. If specificity is near 100% and the test is cheap/fast even low sensitivity can be good
On the other hand you could have sensitivity of 100% but the test could be useless if specificity is low and the condition is rare
- diffeomorphism 1y agoNo, it is a well defined term in this context and does not refer to sensitivity. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4614595/#:~:text=Accuracy:%20The%20accuracy%20of%20a,TP%20+%20TN%20+%20FP%20+%20FN https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4614595/#:~:text=Ac... That is exactly why I gave the trivial example of an "always No" test. It has perfect specificity (zero false positives) and has accuracy corresponding to prevalence. The sensitivity is zero, however, which is the point.
- resoluteteeth 1y agoThe paper explains what it actually means, so it's not nonsense. See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45558941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45558941 it's the area under the curve for the receiver-operating characteristic curve and 94% is extremely good.