e.g. mhealth
Search Results (1 to 10 of 11 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 3 JMIR Research Protocols
- 2 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 1 Iproceedings
- 1 JMIR Aging
- 1 JMIR Dermatology
- 1 JMIR Formative Research
- 1 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 1 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Human Factors
- 0 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 0 JMIR Serious Games
- 0 JMIR Mental Health
- 0 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 0 JMIR Medical Education
- 0 JMIR Cancer
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Diabetes
- 0 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 JMIR Cardio
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 0 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 0 JMIR Nursing
- 0 JMIRx Med
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 JMIR Infodemiology
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR AI
- 0 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 0 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 0 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
We counted the numbers of true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), true-negative (TN), and false-negative (FN) cases to calculate the performance metrics: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), F-score [28], and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) [29].
The F-score is a combination metric in machine learning and NLP research.
JMIR Med Inform 2024;12:e57949
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The test cutoff value was assigned as the point where sensitivity equals specificity [16]. For each cutoff score, sensitivity (true positive rate) with upper and lower 95% CI, specificity (true negative rate) with 95% CI, precision (positive predictive value), and accuracy were reported.
A feasibility and clinical utility questionnaire was used to capture the assessors’ assessments of how easy each scale was to use and how well it performed (Table 1).
J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e41992
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Table 3 summarizes the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for each CLI definition among hospitalizations. Among CLI hospitalizations in adults, COVID-19–specific codes had the highest sensitivity (91.6%) and specificity (99.6%) in identifying patients with SARS-Co V-2 PCR positivity.
Using the VISION CLI definition, the sensitivity remained high (95.8%), but the specificity was considerably lower (45.5%).
JMIR Form Res 2023;7:e39231
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
In a meta-analysis describing the performance of rapid diagnostic tests for group A streptococcal pharyngitis [5], lanthanide immunofluorescent assay (LIFA) and optical immunoassay (OIA) were performing similarly when individual studies were pooled with an average sensitivity of 85% and an average specificity of 97% against culture, but the assays performed with large differences between different suppliers. The sensitivity varied from 71% to 95%, and the specificity varied from 62% to 100% [9-11].
JMIR Res Protoc 2022;11(5):e35706
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Evaluation of the Dengue Surveillance System in Islamabad (2019)
specificity
iproc 2022;8(1):e36630
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and F1 score were calculated for each dermatological manifestation. The F1 score is the harmonic average of the sensitivity and PPV (mean of the recall and precision).
The goal of each model was to differentiate between melanoma and BCC.
JMIR Dermatol 2021;4(2):e31697
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The primary objective of this study is to comparatively evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of nasal and oral samples self-collected by individuals for COVID-19 PCR testing against the reference method (ie, nasopharyngeal swab) involving sample collection and testing by an HCW, which is the method currently used by the central laboratory for testing of symptomatic patients with COVID-19 symptom-onset in ≤7 days.
JMIR Res Protoc 2021;10(5):e24811
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Both versions showed an acceptable sensitivity and specificity (cutoff at ≥8, PACD day-1: sensitivity 82%, specificity 55%, AUC=0.90; PACD day-3: sensitivity 86%, specificity 69%, AUC=0.79) [20]. In patients admitted from home with urinary tract infections, falls/syncope, or heart failure (n=308), PACD day-1 showed a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 62%, and PACD day-3 showed a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 60%, with cutoff at ≥8 [21].
JMIR Res Protoc 2021;10(1):e21447
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The aim was to assess the usability of the app in identifying people with eye problems and to determine whether the target sensitivity and specificity thresholds could be met.
Interim analysis was conducted after two field tests to determine whether the target sensitivity and specificity had been achieved. For this, we compared referral decisions of the CVs using the app with that of the ophthalmologist as a reference standard.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(6):e16345
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The Aachen Falls Prevention Scale: Multi-Study Evaluation and Comparison
Sensitivity and specificity were calculated regarding the primary outcome of the AFPS subjective risk of falling. Subsequently, sensitivity and specificity were calculated in the case that 1 out of the 3 outcomes of the AFPS identified a positive overall result. The same procedure was applied for the calculation of the ROC and thus the AUC values.
Sensitivity and specificity were calculated as described by Lalkhen and Mc Cluskey, Lusardi et al, and Oliver et al [25-27].
JMIR Aging 2019;2(1):e12114
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS