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