搜索下這篇文章

The impact of false positive COVID-19 results in an area of low prevalence

Public Health England reports that RT-PCR assays show a specificity of over 95%, meaning that up to 5% of cases are false positives.2 The impact of false positive results includes risk of overestimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace, and the extent of asymptomatic infection.

假陽性5%，計算方法？

During the same period, there were 5,079 negative tests; thus a total of 5,110 tests were carried out. The false positive rate (single gene low level positive) in this period was 0.5% (26/5110), giving a specificity of 99.5% (5,079/5,105). Over the same period, the true positive rate was 16% (5/31). From this data collected in a very low prevalence setting, the negative predictive value was 100% (no identified false negative results) and the positive predictive value was 16% (5/31).

拜托假陽性up to 5%已經夠高了。

所有跟帖： 

• 謝謝您的留言。這裏有一個簡單的公式，您可以試一下： -平等性- ♂ (811 bytes) () 09/09/2022 postreply 18:43:22

• 不需要我們計算，人家給出的最終結果，數據是實驗獲得的 -匿名3333- ♀ (110 bytes) () 09/09/2022 postreply 18:54:23

• 我文中的例子，假設條件講得很清楚了。您說不對，因為有人的條件和我用的不一樣。您覺得我們是在討論同一個問題嗎？ -平等性- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/09/2022 postreply 19:26:05

• 我覺得你的公式或數據代入值得再檢查 -楊別青- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/10/2022 postreply 07:37:17

• 如果楊兄真的發現了我所列的公式或是計算上有任何問題，請具體指出來。如果沒發現問題，也請回複一下。謝謝！ -平等性- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/10/2022 postreply 08:46:34

• 群體中實際感染的發生率以及檢查對象的感染可能性對結果有很大影響結果 -楊別青- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/10/2022 postreply 11:23:23

• 請見我在下麵的跟帖 -平等性- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/10/2022 postreply 12:36:48