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 3.

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

(a) Reader 1 as gold standard
True Positives False Positives
Algorithm 47/65 (72%) 12/59 (20%)
Reader 2 48/65 (74%) 14/62 (23%)
(b) Reader 2 as gold standard
True Positives False Positives
Algorithm 47/62 (76%) 12/59 (20%)
Reader 1 48/62 (77%) 17/65 (26%)