Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: It is well known that tests are not 100% accurate at classifying individuals. The actual condition of an individual(e.g. diseased, or not diseased) does not coincide with her test result (positive, or negative). Nevertheless, it is often presupposed, as a rule of thumb, that individuals with negative results can be "ruled out" if screening test is highly sensitive and "ruled in" if screening test is highly specific. This has led to the mnemonic SNNOUT (sensitive negative out) and SPPIN (specific positive in).
Method: Probabilistic analysis of SNNOUT and SPPIN.
Result: SNNOUT and SPPIN are incorrect. We devise the correct and easily applicable rules of thumb.
Conclusion: The correct rules of thumb could be of great help to doctors and patients.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jep.13406 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!