Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 5;13(8):e0007577. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007577

Table 6. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of Model 1 and Model 2, by types of images used.

  Model 1 Model 2
Evaluation set Species Se (%) Sp (%) PPV (%) NPV (%) Se (%) Sp (%) PPV (%) NPV (%)
Microscope images AL 57.1 50.0 44.4 62.5 85.7 87.5 85.7 87.5
TT 100.0 91.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
H 0.0 80.0 0.0 61.5 66.7 100.0 100.0 80.0
UVC images AL 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 68.5 40.0 92.5 10.5
TT 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 8.3 96.9 50.0 73.8
H 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
All images AL 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 69.6 61.1 92.0 23.9
TT 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 15.4 97.8 66.7 80.0
H 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 71.4 100.0 100.0 96.2

AL, A. lumbricoides; H, hookworm; N/A, not applicable; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; TT, T. trichiura.

Model 1 failed to identify any eggs in UVC images.