Sensitivity Assessments
Sensitivity Assessments - Related Videos
08:49
Assessing Changes in Volatile General Anesthetic Sensitivity of Mice after Local or Systemic Pharmacological Intervention
0 Views •
Cited by 23 •
2013
Loss of the righting reflex has long served as a standard behavioral surrogate for unconsciousness, also called hypnosis, in laboratory animals. Alterations in volatile anesthetic sensitivity caused by pharmacological interventions can be detected with a carefully controlled high-throughput assessment system, which may be adapted for delivery of any inhaled therapeutic.
10:28
Assessment of Cocaine-induced Behavioral Sensitization and Conditioned Place Preference in Mice
0 Views •
Cited by 19 •
2016
This protocol is intended to enable researchers to conduct experiments designed to test these aspects of addiction using the conditioned place preference and locomotor behavioral sensitization assays.
07:47
Assessing the Influence of Personality on Sensitivity to Magnetic Fields in Zebrafish
0 Views •
Cited by 10 •
2019
We describe a behavioral protocol designed to assess how zebrafish’s personalities influence their response to water currents and weak magnetic fields. Fishes with the same personalities are separated based on their explorative behavior. Then, their rheotactic orientation behavior in a swimming tunnel with a low flow rate and under different magnetic conditions is observed.
06:00
Assessment of Spatial Lingual Tactile Sensitivity using a Gratings Orientation Test
0 Views •
Cited by 2 •
2021
This work illustrates a standard procedure and threshold determination by the R-index to assess spatial lingual tactile sensitivity using a gratings orientation test.
09:49
Assessment of Perigenital Sensitivity and Prostatic Mast Cell Activation in a Mouse Model of Neonatal Maternal Separation
0 Views •
Cited by 25 •
2015
We are measuring perigenital mechanical sensitivity and mast cell activation in the prostate of male C57BL/6 mice that underwent an early life stress paradigm – neonatal maternal separation, in order to induce a preclinical model of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.
FAQs
Changing the positivity threshold can alter how many affected individuals are classified as test-positive. A threshold that captures more cases may also change the balance between true-positive and false-negative results, while a stricter threshold may miss additional cases. Sensitivity estimates therefore require clear threshold reporting so researchers can interpret differences between tests or screening strategies appropriately.
The reference standard determines which individuals are treated as having the target condition when calculating performance. If that standard changes, the classification of true positives and false negatives can also change, producing a different sensitivity estimate. Comparing methods is therefore most meaningful when they are assessed against the same clearly specified reference standard.
Sensitivity focuses on detecting individuals who have the condition, whereas specificity addresses results among individuals who do not have it. Considering both measures helps prevent an assessment from emphasizing case detection while overlooking incorrect positive classifications. This combined interpretation supports more balanced comparisons of diagnostic methods and more informed clinical decisions.
A clinical assessment needs counts of true-positive and false-negative results among individuals identified by the reference standard as having the condition. Sensitivity is then calculated by dividing true positives by the sum of true positives and false negatives. Reporting these underlying counts helps readers understand how missed cases contributed to the resulting estimate.
Researchers can apply the same outcome definition and reference standard to different diagnostic methods, then compare their sensitivity estimates and missed-case counts. The same approach can evaluate screening strategies by showing how effectively each identifies affected individuals. These comparisons help identify approaches that may detect more cases, while still requiring interpretation alongside other performance measures.
Sensitivity findings may vary when assessments are performed in different patient populations or under different analytic assumptions. Evaluating these changes shows whether conclusions remain consistent or depend on a particular group, threshold, or reference standard. Such assessments are especially useful in clinical research because they reveal the conditions under which evidence remains reliable and comparable.