Question

1. Construct a 2 by 2 table, calculate the predictive value positive and predictive value negative...

1. Construct a 2 by 2 table, calculate the predictive value positive and predictive value negative of the EIA in a hypothetical population of 1,000,000 blood donors. Using a separate 2-by-2 table, calculate PVP and PVN for a population of ill patients. Assume that the actual prevalence of S. Heidelberg among blood donors is 0.04% (.0004) and that of people who ate Foster's chicken is 10.00% (.10).

2. Do you think that the EIA is a good screening test for the hospital? Why or why not?

3. DO you think that the EIA performs well enough to justify using the test outcomes in court cases? Why or why not?

4. If sensitivity and specificity remain constant, what is the relationship of the prevalence of predicative-value positive and predicative value negative?

Given their success with the EIA for S. Heidelberg, Meridian Diagnostics decided to perfect their design, and use it to produce an EIA test for E.coli 0157 H7.

0 0
Add a comment Improve this question Transcribed image text
Answer #1

1) Actual prevalence of S. Heidelberg among blood donors is 0.04% (0.0004)

Total number of cases (a+ c) = 0.0004 X 1,000,000 = 400

Sensitivity of the test is 95% or .095

Number of true positives (a) = number of cases X sensitivity of the test

Number of true positives (a) = 400 X 0.95 = 380

Number of true negatives (d) = (number of diagnosed negatives (b + d) – number of cases) X specificity of the test

Number of true negatives (d) = (1,000,000 – 400) X 0.98

= 999,600 X 0.98 = 979,608

Number of false negative (c) = 400 – 380 = 20

Number of false Positive (b) = 999,600 – 979,608 = 19, 992

Test results Present Absent Total
Positive 380(a) 19992(b) 20372(a + b)
Negative 20 (c) 979608(d) 979628 (c+d)
Total 400(a +c) 999600(c+d) 1,000,000

Predictive value plus (PVP) = a/ (a+ b) X 100

= 380/ 20,372 X 100 = 1.865%

PVP = 2%

Predictive value negative (PVN) = d/ (c+ d) X100

= 979,608/ 979,628 X 100

PVN = 99. 99%

2) Based on the PVP and PVN values, EIA is not a good screening test for blood bank because it has high sensitivity and specificity to identify the individuals with S. Heidelberg. It requires an additional test to confirm the positive EIA of blood donors.

3) EIA does not perform very well to identify positive clients in court cases. Because it has high specificity and sensitivity, so it needs a further test and counseling.

4) If the sensitivity and specificity remain constant, then the antibody becomes fall, which results in decreased Predict value positive and increased Predict value Negative. Low PVP means Low prevalence of the disease.

Add a comment
Know the answer?
Add Answer to:
1. Construct a 2 by 2 table, calculate the predictive value positive and predictive value negative...
Your Answer:

Post as a guest

Your Name:

What's your source?

Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.

Not the answer you're looking for? Ask your own homework help question. Our experts will answer your question WITHIN MINUTES for Free.
Similar Homework Help Questions
  • construct a 2 by 2 table, calculate predictive value positive and predictive value negative of the...

    construct a 2 by 2 table, calculate predictive value positive and predictive value negative of the EIA in a hypothetical population of 1,000,000 blood donors. using a separate 2 by 2 table calculate PVP and PVN for a population of 1000 ill patients. Assume that the actual prevalence of S. heidelberg among blood donors is 0.04% (0.0004 ) and that of people who ate foster's chicken is 10.0% (0.10).

  • Calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the Test Screen.                       &nbs

    Calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the Test Screen.                                    Medical Assessment Test Screen              Disease          No Disease Total Possible Disease   30                    20                    50 No Disease              10                    40                    50 Total                          40                    60                    100

  • In this hypothetical case study, a new rapid test kit nicknamed Alpha is being reviewed. The...

    In this hypothetical case study, a new rapid test kit nicknamed Alpha is being reviewed. The sensitivity of Alpha is 93.0% (0.93) and the specificity is 96.0% (0.96). Assume that the actual prevalence of the Zika antibody among the United States population of blood donors is 4% (0.04) and that of the hurricane disaster relief volunteers returning from Puerto Rico is 20.0% (0.20). Construct a 2 x 2 table, to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive...

  • Questions 3 please Questions TABLE 3.10 Ankle Test Results 1. Let CP represent the event that...

    Questions 3 please Questions TABLE 3.10 Ankle Test Results 1. Let CP represent the event that the ankle was truly fractured, and let T+ represent the event that the test said it was. From the table, estimate the positive predictive value and the negative predictive value. Truth Regarding Fracture Predicted by the Ottawa Ankle Test Not Fractured Totals 56 Not Fractured 51 365 Fractured 277 328 93 421 Totals 2. Which do you think a patient would be more interested...

  • Questions TABLE 3.10 Ankle Test Results Let CP represent the event that the ankle was truly...

    Questions TABLE 3.10 Ankle Test Results Let CP represent the event that the ankle was truly fractured, and let T+ represent the event that the test said it was. From the table, estimate the positive predictive value and the negative predictive value. 1. Truth Regarding Fracture Predicted by the Ottawa Ankle Test Not Totals Fractured Not Fractured 51 56 Fractured 277 365 Totals 328 93 421 2. Which do you think a patient would be more interested in, P(T+|CP) or...

  • The DoubleCheckGoldTM HIV 1&2 test has a sensitivity of 99.9% and a specificity of 99.6%. Suppose...

    The DoubleCheckGoldTM HIV 1&2 test has a sensitivity of 99.9% and a specificity of 99.6%. Suppose that a particular high-risk population has an HIV prevalence of 10%. a. Suppose that a member of this high-risk population is known to be HIV positive. What is the probability that this person will produce a false negative result using this test? Report the result to the nearest tenth of a percent. b. Compute and interpret the positive predictive value for this test when...

  • Scenario 1: The prevalence (a + c in the table below) of previously undetected diabetes in...

    Scenario 1: The prevalence (a + c in the table below) of previously undetected diabetes in a population to be screened is approximately 1.5% and it is assumed that 10,000 persons will be screened. The screening test will measure blood serum sugar content. A value of 180 mg/dl or higher is considered positive. The sensitivity (a) and the specificity (d) associated with this screening are 22.9% and 99.8% respectively. Questions 1-9: set up a two by two table with the...

  • BEYOND THE NUMBERS 3.10 | LEARNING OUTCOMES 1 TO 3 BEYOND THE NUMBERS 3.10 LEARNING OUTCOMES...

    BEYOND THE NUMBERS 3.10 | LEARNING OUTCOMES 1 TO 3 BEYOND THE NUMBERS 3.10 LEARNING OUTCOMES 1 TO 3 Bayes' Rule EXTEND Name Section Number To be graded, all assignments must be completed and submitted on the original book page Background The notation P(A|B) is read as "the probability of A, given B, has occurred." So the "I" symbol is read as "given." Formally, A and B are called events and P(AIB) is a conditional probability Bayes rule is a...

  • Negative Test Result Positive Test Result 335 Hepatitis C No Hepatitis C DIR (a) (2 points)...

    Negative Test Result Positive Test Result 335 Hepatitis C No Hepatitis C DIR (a) (2 points) Find the probability of selecting a subject with a positive test result, given that the subject does not have hepatitis C Why is this case problematic for test subjects? (b) (2 points) Find the probability of selecting a subject with a negative test result, given that the subject does not have hepatitis C. What would be an unfavorable consequence of this error? (c) (2...

  • Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are based on the following information: An...

    Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are based on the following information: An epidemiological study (hypothetical) in humans in an infected country showed the following results: 1176 humans from a village were tested for dengue using an ELISA test, 168 tested positive. Out of 168 tested positives, 100 were misclassified as positive. Similarly, 408 were also misclassified as negative by the test. Question 1. Calculate the prevalence based on the ELISA result. 14.3%             b. 10%            ...

ADVERTISEMENT
Free Homework Help App
Download From Google Play
Scan Your Homework
to Get Instant Free Answers
Need Online Homework Help?
Ask a Question
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 3 hours.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT