Skip to main content
. 2011 Aug;179(2):547–554. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.05.010

Table 2.

Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value of Image Analysis of the Unstained Specimen and of Images Segmented by the Different Transforms and Algorithms

Statistic Unstained specimen RVM2 DCA RVM3 DCA RVM2 β-NTF RVM3 β-NTF RVM2 HALS NMF RVM3 HALS NMF RVM2 NMU-ℓ1 RVM3 NMU-ℓ1
Nerve fiber (nervus ischiadicus)
 Sens, % 100/100 92.6/92.7 92.9/96.2 90.6/90.6 96.4/98.2 90.9/90.7 98.2/96.4 92.3/92.5 98.3/98.3
 PPV, % 67/67 82/82.3 63.4/61.4 70.6/71.6 55.8/57.9 71.4/69 73/74 64/66.2 66.7/65.9
Spleen tissue
 Sens, % 97.7/97.7 97.7/94.9 97.7/96 97.7/95.6 Failed 96.2/96.3 Failed 96.2/94.2 98.3/99.2
 PPV, % 70/73.6 75.7/73.2 84/84 84.2/79.9 Failed 80.5/84 Failed 81.5/78.9 87.4/86

Results obtained independently by two pathologists are separated by a virgule mark. Bold type indicates the several best results that combine high sensitivity and low false positive alarm rate.

Sens = NTP/(NTP + NFN) and PPV = NTP/(NTP + NFP), where Sens is sensitivity, N is number, TP is true positive, FN is false negative, FP is false positive, and PPV is positive predictive value.