What is Accuracy?
The “accuracy” of a measurement refers to how close a
measurement is to a “true” (actual) value. The accuracy of most
instrumentation, is dependant on the accuracy of the device, or
method used for calibration.
This is the Actual value. Accuracy is the distance of the
measurement from the Actual value. The Red is more accurate
than the Green.
What is Precision?
Precision is a measure of the spread of different readings.
Precision and accuracy are unrelated to each other, meaning
that you can be very PRECISE but not ACCURATE. In practical
terms precision is often more relevant to an online analyser than
accuracy. Precision is also as a synonym for the resolution of the
measurement e.g. a measurement that can distinguish the
difference between, 0.01 and 0.02 is more precise (has a greater
resolution) than one that can only tell the difference between 0.1
and 0.2 even though they may be equally accurate.
The Red is more precise than the Blue.
What is Repeatability/ Reproducibility?
Reproducibility is the degree to which an experiment or study
can be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else
working independently, and is one of the main principles of the
scientific method. For the vast majority of people/situations
reproducibility equals repeatability.
Sensitivity is the proportion of truly diseased persons in the
screened population who are identified as diseased by the
screening test (i.e. they have high scores). Sensitivity indicates the
probability that the test will correctly diagnose a case, or the
probability that any given case will be identified by the test.
To help you remember the term, being sensitive implies being able
to react to something.
Specificity is the proportion of persons without the disease who
have low scores on the screening test: the probability that the test
will correctly identify a non-diseased person. To help you
remember the term, a specific test is one that picks up only the
disease in question, so it has a narrow focus, which explains the
term 'specific'.
Positive and Negative Predictive Value
When evaluating the feasibility or the success of a screening
program, one should also consider the positive and negative
predictive values. These are also computed from the same 2 x 2
contingency table, but the perspective is entirely different.
Positive predictive value is the probability that subjects with a
positive screening test truly have the disease.
Negative predictive value is the probability that subjects with
a negative screening test truly don't have the disease.
One way to avoid confusing this with sensitivity and specificity is to
imagine that you are a patient and you have just received the results
of your screening test (or imagine you are the physician telling a
patient about their screening test results. If the test was positive, the
patient will want to know the probability that they really have the
disease, i.e., how worried should they be?
Conversely, if it is good news, and the screening test was negative,
how reassured should the patient be? What is the probability that
they are disease free?
Another way that helps me keep this straight is to always orient my
contingency table with the gold standard at the top and the true
disease status listed in the columns. The illustrations used earlier for
sensitivity and specificity emphasized a focus on the numbers in the
left column for sensitivity and the right column for specificity. If this
orientation is used consistently, the focus for predictive value is on
what is going on within each row in the 2 x 2 table, as you will see
below.
Positive Predictive Value:If a test subject has an abnormal
screening test (i.e., it's positive), what is the probability that the
subject really has the disease? In the example we have been using
there were 1,115 subjects whose screening test was positive, but
only 132 of these actually had the disease, according to the gold
standard diagnosis. Therefore, if a subject's screening test was
positive, the probability of disease was 132/1,115 = 11.8%.
Table - Illustration of Positive Predicative Value of a Hypothetical
Screening Test
Positive predictive value focuses on
subjects with a positive screening test in
order to ask the probability of disease for
those subjects.
Not
Diseased Total
Diseased
Test
132 983 1,115
Positive
Test
45 63,650 63,695
Negative
Column
177 64,633 64,810
Totals
Here, the positive predictive value is 132/1,115 = 0.118, or 11.8%.
Interpretation: Among those who had a positive screening test, the
probability of disease was 11.8%.
Negative Predictive Value
Negative predictive value: If a test subject has a negative screening
test, what is the probability that the subject really does not have the
disease? In the same example, there were 63,895 subjects whose
screening test was negative, and 63,650 of these were, in fact, free of
disease. Consequently, the negative predictive value of the test was
63,650/63,695 = 99.9%.
Table - Illustration of Negative Predicative Value of a Hypothetical
Screening Test
Negative predictive value focuses on
subjects with a negative screening test in
order to ask the probability that subjects
with a negative test are truly not
diseased.
Not
Diseased Total
Diseased
Test
132 983 1,115
Positive
Test
45 63,650 63,695
Negative
Column
177 64,633 64,810
Totals
Here, the négative predictive values is 63,650/63,695=0.999, or
99.9%.
Interpretation: Among those who had a negative screening test, the
probability of being disease-free was 99.9%.
