Showing papers on "False positive paradox published in 1973"
TL;DR: Two complementary noninvasive techniques were used to evaluate 360 carotid arteries in 208 patients to determine their diagnostic accuracy based on arteriography, and a composite diagnostic accuracy of 86% by phonoangiography and 91% by oculoplethysmography was achieved.
Abstract: Two complementary noninvasive techniques, carotid phonoangiography and oculoplethysmography, were used to evaluate 360 carotid arteries in 208 patients to determine their diagnostic accuracy based on arteriography. A composite diagnostic accuracy of 86% by phonoangiography and 91% by oculoplethysmography was achieved. Intraoperative flow measurements from 69 operative procedures in 66 patients were used to evaluate the ability of arteriography, phonoangiography, and oculoplethysmography to assess the hemodynamic significance of a given carotid occlusive lesion. Arteriography had a composite accuracy of 86% (10% false positives and 4% false negatives). This recognizes the bias introduced by surgical selection being based on arteriography. Phonoangiography gave 72% accurate interpretations (9% false positives and 19% false negatives). Oculoplethysmography was more accurate with 87% correct interpretations (3% false positives and 10% false negatives). No contraindications or significant complications were encountered with these methods.
142 citations
TL;DR: Three points are made to indicate ways of improving the clinical usefulness of laboratory information by relating the value associated with testing to the combined costs due to "false positives," "false negatives," and "late results".
43 citations
TL;DR: Intra- modal and cross-modal matching of nonsense forms was studied in a 2-by-2 factorial experiment and the most prominent effect was an interaction between the standard modality and the comparison modality.
Abstract: Garvill, J. & Molander, B. Effects of standard modality, comparison modality and retention interval on matching of form. Scand. J. Psychol., 1973, 14, 203–206.MdashIntra-modal and cross-modal matching of nonsense forms was studied in a 2 (standard modalities: visual vs. tactual) by 2 (comparison modalities: visual vs. tactual) by 3 (intervals between standard and comparison: 1, 10 and 30 sec) factorial experiment. The errors were divided into false negatives and false positives. Significant effects of standard modality and of comparison modality were found for false negatives. For false positives the most prominent effect was an interaction between the standard modality and the comparison modality. Retention interval had no effect in any of the modality conditions. The effects are discussed in terms of differential information processing capacity for the visual and the tactual modalities.
18 citations