Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019 Dec 3;29(2):182–188. doi: 10.1002/pds.4919

TABLE 2.

Accuracy measurements of the NLP system in identifying vaccine-related anaphylaxis after removing cases without notes

Site Reference standard (n/N) TP TN FN FP Sensitivity CI (%) Specificity CI (%) PPV CI (%) NPV CI (%) F-score CI
KPSC 14/421 12 401 2 6 85.7
57.2–98.2
98.5
96.8–99.5
66.7
41.0–86.7
99.5
98.2–99.9
0.83
0.98–1.00
Site 2 1/46 0 42 1 3 0.0 93.3
81.7–98.6
0.0 97.7
87.7–99.9
0.00
Site 3 0/104 0 102 0 2 NA 98.1
93.2–99.8
0.0 100.0
97.1–100
NA
Site 4 1/75 0 72 1 2 0.0 97.3
90.6–99.7
0.0 98.6
92.6–99.9
0.00
Site 5 1/67 0 62 1 4 0.0 93.9
85.2–98.3
0.0 98.4
91.5–99.9
0.00

Note: 95% confidence intervals are displayed beneath point estimates. Reference standard: 2009 to 2011 anaphylaxis cases abstracted and adjudicated as part of McNeil et al study.

Abbreviations: F-score: F=(β2+1)PPVsensitivityβ2PPV+sensitivity, with β = 3; FN, false negative—NLP negative, reference standard positive; FP, false positive—NLP positive, reference standard negative; n, number of positive vaccine-related anaphylaxis cases; N, number of cases reviewed; NPV, negative predictive value; TN, true negative—NLP negative, reference standard negative; TP, true positive—NLP positive, reference standard positive; PPV, positive predictive value.