% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

NanoLogix, Inc. Message Board

  • petro_drilling_engineer petro_drilling_engineer Feb 14, 2012 12:12 PM Flag

    NNLX BNF Rapid Detection verse Culture (Gold Standard)


    Are there any lab techs or doctors posting?

    Per poster - Rail's post:
    Quick Test versus Culture:

    (159 Patients)

    True positive- 24
    True negative- 120
    False positive- 12
    False negative- 3

    Please correct if am mistaken, but my understanding is as follows:
    True Positive = 24 samples, where NNLX and Culture both agreed
    True Negative = 120 samples, where NNLX and Culture both agreed
    15 samples where NNLX and Culture did not agree

    My initial assumption was that the NNLX was not as accurate as Culture. Could it be POSSIBLE, that the NNLX test is correct, and the Culture one is incorrect?

    From the data, only know that they do not agree. Curious if any folks that deal with culture on a daily or professional basis, think it is possible that the NNLX could be MORE ACCURATE than the Culture results? Could the length of time for a standard test have anything to do with the final answer: negative at 72 hours, but positive later?

    Just trying to understand why these medical professionals are so positive, when they made this report; but with lower sensitivity and specificity numbers than I was personally expecting...

    Am NOT saying NNLX is more accurate, just working to understand the difference. Seems either is technically possible. Right?

    Only in my opinion;

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
0.090.00(+4.65%)Oct 21 1:08 PMEDT