Table 5. Comparison of parameter estimates derived from the herein described Bayesian model and from a previously applied gold standard approach [25].

Cut-off	SICCT		SENTRY 100	GENios Pro
	>4mm	>2mm	≥15	≥38
Bayesian method:
Sensitivity	51.1% (42.1–60.1%)	66.3% (57.5–74.6%)	45.5% (39.3–52.9%)	47.2% (39.9–54.7%)
Specificity	98.6% (97.9–99.2%)	89.2% (86.6–91.5%)	96.4% (95.4–97.4%)	92.4% (90.7–93.9%)
AUC	0.80 (0.73–0.87)	0.80 (0.73–0.87)	0.57 (0.51–0.65)	0.64 (0.57–0.72)
Gold standard approach:
Sensitivity	20.0% (5.7–43.7%)*	65.0% (43.3–81.9%)	30.0% (14.5–51.9%)	50.0% (29.9–70.1%)
Specificity	93.1% (91.1–94.6%)	86.7% (84.2–88.9%)	94.4% (92.7–95.8%)	88.4% (86.1–90.4%)
AUC	0.80 (0.71–0.88)	0.80 (0.71–0.88)	0.70 (0.58–0.82)	0.67 (0.52–0.82)

The previously conducted diagnostic test evaluation considered animals with PCR confirmed infections and animals not showing lesions during post mortem meat inspection as disease positive and negative animals, respectively.

^*95% binomial exact confidence intervals are indicated because (estimated value)×(sample size)≤5; for all other parameter estimates in the gold standard approach, Wilson confidence intervals are shown.