ECE 416 HW 1 Spring 2012 YuHao Liu Part 1. 1.

Blood donors: PVP PVN Drug users: PVP PVN

1.87% 0.098%

84.1% 0.564%

PVP = (sensitivity)(prevalence)/[(sensitivity)(prevalence)+(1-specificity)(1-prevalence)] PVN = (1-sensitivity)(prevalence)/[(1-sensitivity)(prevalence)+(specificity)(1-prevalence)] Sensitivity = 95%, Specificity = 98% 1,000,000 blood donors, prevalence is 0.04% 1,000 drug users, prevalence is 10.0% 2. Since EIA has 95% sensitivity, I think EIA will generally be a good screening test; however, improvements should be done to push the sensitivity to nearly 100%. Notification of EIA-positive blood donors should be done with additional comments on the sensitivity and urge them to redo the test. 3. According to question 1, only 84.1% of the people from the test that shows positive screening test actually has the antibody, which means 15.9% of them may not have the antibody, therefore it is still somewhat doubtful to justify informing clients the positive results. I think EIA is not very satisfactory in terms of testing drug abuse clients. 4. The higher the prevalence, the higher the predictive-value positive and predictive-value negative; therefore keeping sensitivity and specificity constant, the prevalence is proportional to PVP and PVN. 5. The sensitivity will greatly decrease and specificity will slightly increase if cutoff value raise from A to B.

a higher sensitivity may ensure that the blood bank is safe to use. the blood donors should have a lower cutoff value since the blood are donated to the general public. If the accuracy is not very high.6. 9. A predictive-value positive increase so dramatically because the calculation was based on the actual prevalence that was the result of the first test.02x0. By the same formula: PVP = (sensitivity)(prevalence)/[(sensitivity)(prevalence)+(1-specificity)(1-prevalence)] PVN = (1-sensitivity)(prevalence)/[(1-sensitivity)(prevalence)+(specificity)(1-prevalence)] And new prevalence for the second test is 2. From ethic point of view. The sensitivity will increase with decreasing the specificity if lower the cutoff from A to C. Sensitivity and Specificity is oppositely proportional to each other in a screening test. what is the prevalence of HIV antibody among the general public.04% 10. And the drug abuser having the higher cutoff value since most of them will be tested positively. dramatically increase the accuracy of the test. therefore it is a secondary screening. .99% specificity. we need to consider how accurate the test is. And then we need to consider that in this population. First of all. 12. increasing the positive result value. 7. hence increase the sensitivity and decrease specificity. 8. The actual antibody prevalence of the population that will undergo a second test is: [(sensitivity)(prevalence)+(1-specificity)(1-prevalence)]= (0. so fewer amount of the results will fall in the false negative region.4% 11. The EIA-WB sequence has higher predictive-value positive because of its 99. therefore the test react very specifically to HIV antibody.9996)=2. The PVP: EIA-EIA EIA-Western blot 49.95x0.04%. Therefore we should set a lower cutoff value. we might make a lot of couple divorce. this might generate a cost problem is a lot of secondary tests are needed.7% 99.0004)+(0.

000. so the Governor has to decide whether this is a mandatory screening program or not. because the prevalence of HIV antibody in general public is very small. it costs $50 x 60. The cost per identified antibody-positive person is $3014300/22= $137. but each person only needs to pay $150. 13.000 people involved in the initial tests.300. 14. And the improved EIA test kit should be used to ensure high accuracy of the test.013.000= $3.Also.300. .000 and 143 people needs additional testing for $100 each that costs $14. The screening program should be voluntary and be paid by the participants instead of the government. So the total cost of the screening program next year should be around $3. Since there are 60. privacy is another issue because the spouse may not be willing to reveal their test result to third person. it is very costly and economically imbalance to identify antibody-positive person by government resources.014.

a. Bin 110-120 121-130 131-140 141-150 151-160 161-170 171-180 181-190 191-200 201-210 211-220 221-230 231-240 SDI Score . Histogram distribution of SDI 35 30 25 Frequency (times) 20 15 10 5 0 -5 110 160 SDI scores 210 260 SDI Score .Man's partner not pregnant The range of SDI scores that the two distribution overlap is 140 to 180.Man's partner became pregnant SDI Score .Man's partner became pregnant 11 17 29 29 24 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 SDI Score .Part 2.Man's partner not pregnant 0 1 2 5 4 13 5 5 2 2 2 0 1 .

70E-03 0.8 .976 140 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.b.2 0.904 x = 1-specificity = 1-(1+2+5+4+13+5+5+2+2+2)/42=0.0238 *y is sensitivity. Cut off value y x 130 0.904 0.4 FPF 0.405 180 0.757 0.286 190 0.0174 0.4 0.0434 0.0174 0.929 150 0.119 210 0 0.0714 220 0 0.504 0.6 ROC curve ROC_smooth TPF 0.976 0.81 160 0.714 170 0. y = sensitivity = (17+29+29+24+3+0+1+1)/115=0.6 0. x is 1-specificity Sample calculation: For 130 cut-off value.167 200 8.252 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful