Table 3.
Diagnosis by DSGZ | Diagnostic parameters | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FD | VM | MD | BPPV | UVP | BVP | VP | SENS (%) | SPEC (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | ||
Diagnosis by classification algorithm | FD | 146 | 41 | 5 | 8 | 14 | 7 | 2 | 42.2 | 57.8 | 65.5 | 34.5 |
VM | 63 | 84 | 22 | 22 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 39.1 | 60.9 | 38.4 | 61.6 | |
MD | 30 | 28 | 70 | 7 | 15 | 9 | 0 | 49.3 | 50.7 | 44.0 | 56.0 | |
BPPV | 36 | 17 | 20 | 76 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 56.7 | 43.3 | 41.1 | 58.9 | |
UVP | 8 | 11 | 4 | 12 | 23 | 0 | 1 | 20.2 | 79.8 | 39.0 | 61.0 | |
BVP | 43 | 17 | 19 | 6 | 28 | 32 | 9 | 48.5 | 51.5 | 20.8 | 79.2 | |
VP | 20 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 38.8 | 61.2 | 28.4 | 71.6 |
Performance is described by SENS, sensitivity; SPEC, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value, and NPV, negative predictive value.