Table 2. Diagnostic parameters of Minim typing for CC8 and subCCs within CC8.

CC/subCC	STsa	MelTsb	Sensitivity		Specificity		PPV
			Rawc	Enhancedd	Raw	Enhanced	Raw	Enhanced
8 (all)	185	22	0.973	0.965	0.976	0.983	0.863	0.906
8–8	110	10	0.891	0.935	0.992	0.998	0.899	0.972
8–239	44	7	0.911	0.948	0.992	0.997	0.788	0.932
8–72	14	1	0.717	0.733	0.996	0.996	0.630	0.688
8–247	11	0e	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
8–770	6	2	0.830	0.897	0.997	0.997	0.560	0.625

The calculations assumed equal abundance of all STs. ND = not determined.

^aNumber of STs belonging to the CC/subCC.

^bNumber of MelTs diagnostic for the CC/subCC. Each MelT defines either a single ST belonging to the CC/subCC of interest, or a group of STs of which at least 50% are of the CC/subCC of interest.

^cThe CC and subCC assignments for STs in the Excel key were used without modification.

^dSingletons that are DLVs of the founder of the CC/subCC were classified as true positives, and false positive and false negative STs that are SLVs for more than one CC/subCC founder were assigned to the CC/subCC that maximizes the diagnostic parameters. Additional singletons that are founder DLVs and do not correspond to MelT diagnostic for the CC/subCC of interest were identified as new false negatives.

^eThere are no MelTs diagnostic for subCC 8–247 according to the criterion used, primarily because CC7 and subCC 8–247 are not discriminated by Minim typing.