Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 2.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Sep 24;124(3):452–461. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.09.003

Table 2.

Comparison of the performance of the algorithm to Reader 1 and Reader 2 when identifying delta waves. The algorithm had a lower true and false positive rate when compared to either reader.

(a) Reader 1 as gold standard
True Positives False Positives
Algorithm 557/709 (79%) 129/686 (19%)
Reader 2 579/709 (82%) 174/754 (23%)
(b) Reader 2 as gold standard
True Positives False Positives
Algorithm 574/754 (76%) 112/686 (16%)
Reader 1 579/754 (77%) 129/709 (18%)