Question

In: Math

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 separate 2 x 2 table, to calculate the PPV and NPV for a population of 2,500 volunteers who aided in the recent hurricane relief efforts in the Caribbean.

If sensitivity and specificity remain constant, what is the relationship of prevalence to predictive-value positive and predictive-value negative? (Hint: Think if one increases, decreases, or stays the same.)

Solutions

Expert Solution

Answer :

Constructive prescient esteem is the likelihood that a man is having illness, given that the individual was tried positive

Positive predicted value = P(disease and test positive) / P(test positive) = (prevalence x sensitivity) / (prevalence x sensitivity + (1 - prevalence)x(1 - specificity)

For joined states populace, the commonness is 0.04

relating positive prescient esteem = (0.04x0.93)/(0.04x0.93 + (1 - 0.4)x(1-0.96))

= 0.0372/0.0372+(0.6*0.04)

= 0.0372/0.0372+0.024

= 0.0372/0.0612

= 0.0.6078

= 60.78%

For volunteers coming back from Puerto Rico, the pervasiveness is 0.2

corresponding positive predictive value = (0.2x0.93)/(0.2x0.93 + (1 - 0.2)x(1-0.96))

= 0.186/0.186+(0.8*0.04)

= 0.186/0.186+0.032

= 0.186/0.218

= 0.8532

= 85.32%

The positive prescient esteem increments with increments in commonness

Pessimistic prescient esteem is the likelihood that a man isn't having sickness, given that the individual was tried negative

Negative predicted value= P(no illness and test negative)/P(test negative)

= ((1 - pervasiveness) x explicitness)/((1 - commonness) x particularity) + predominance x (1 - affectability))

For joined states populace, the pervasiveness is 0.04

corresponding negative predictive value = ((1 - 0.04) x 0.96)/((1 - 0.04) x 0.96) + 0.04 x (1 - 0.93))

(0.96*0.96)0.96*0.96)+0.04*0.07

=0.216/0.9216+0.0028

= 9216/0.9244

= 0.9960

= 99.60%

For volunteers coming back from Puerto Rico, the pervasiveness is 0.2

corresponding positive predictive value = ((1 - 0.2) x 0.96)/((1 - 0.2) x 0.96) + 0.2 x (1 - 0.93))

= (0.8*0.96)/(0.8*0.96)+0.2*0.07

= 0.768/0.768+0.014

= 0.768/0.714

= 1.0756

= 107.563%

The negative prescient esteem diminishes with increment in commonness


Related Solutions

A new test is being assessed as a rapid screening tool for HIV+ status. In a...
A new test is being assessed as a rapid screening tool for HIV+ status. In a sample of 483 persons, 50 are HIV+ as defined by traditional assays. Of these 50, the new screening test was positive for 40 persons. Of those HIV- (as defined by traditional assays), the new screening test was negative for 416 persons. Fill in the table (5 points)                                                     Gold Std- Traditional Test HIV + HIV- total + - Total                                                                                                                         a. What is...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 11 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 78.1 with a standard deviation of 3 . A random sample of 19 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 84.1 with a standard deviation of 5.9 . Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 11 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 78.1 with a standard deviation of 3 . A random sample of 19 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 84.1 with a standard deviation of 5.9 . Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 1515 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 71.871.8 with a standard deviation of 6.16.1. A random sample of 1010 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 84.384.3 with a standard deviation of 5.25.2. Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught in traditional...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 7 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 79.6 with a standard deviation of 3.3. A random sample of 15 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 84.9 with a standard deviation of 5. Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught in traditional...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 13 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 76.1 with a standard deviation of 3.3 . A random sample of 19 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 80.9 with a standard deviation of 4.9 . Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 16 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 71.1 with a standard deviation of 4.4 A random sample of 11 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 80.7 with a standard deviation of 5.9. Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught in traditional...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 11 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 76.7 with a standard deviation of 3.2. A random sample of 16 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 83.2 with a standard deviation of 6.4. Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught in traditional...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 19 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of  77 with a standard deviation of 3.6 . A random sample of 12 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of  86.7 with a standard deviation of 6.5 . Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught in traditional...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample...
Two teaching methods and their effects on science test scores are being reviewed. A random sample of 8 students, taught in traditional lab sessions, had a mean test score of 76.8 with a standard deviation of 4.2 . A random sample of 16 students, taught using interactive simulation software, had a mean test score of 87.8 with a standard deviation of 5.8 . Do these results support the claim that the mean science test score is lower for students taught...
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT