Sensitivity Sample Clauses

Sensitivity. Better than *** pV per meter, at minimum
Sensitivity. As at March 31, 2022 Change in Impact on defined benefit obligation assumptionIncreaseDecreaseDiscount rate0.50%(0.23%)0.26%Salary escalation rate0.50%0.25%(0.23%) As at March 31, 2021 Change in Impact on defined benefit obligation assumptionIncreaseDecreaseDiscount rate0.50%(0.24%)0.26%Salary escalation rate0.50%0.26%(0.24%)The above sensitivity analyses are based on a change in an assumption while holding all other assumptions constant. In practice, this is unlikely to occur, and changes in some of the assumptions may be correlated. When calculating the sensitivity of the defined benefit obligation to significant actuarial assumptions the same method (present value of the defined benefit obligation calculated with the projected unit credit method at the end of the reporting period) has been applied as when calculating the defined benefit liability recognised in the balance sheet.The methods and types of assumptions used in preparing the sensitivity analysis did not change compared to the prior period.NOTES TO STANDALONE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2022
Sensitivity. The analytical sensitivity of the DIAsource ELISA was calculated by adding 2 standard deviations to the mean of 20 replicate analyses of the Zero Calibrator (S0) and was found to be 1.27 mIU/mL.
Sensitivity. Sensitivity address is 0x22, by default the value is set to 0x14, the range is from 0x0000 to 0x1F. Address 0x20 is set to 0x5A.
Sensitivity. The sensitivity of a surveillance system can be considered on two levels. First, at the level of case reporting, sensitivity refers to the proportion of cases of a disease (or other health-related event) detected by the surveillance system (Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems: Recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group, MMWR, 2001). Second, sensitivity can refer to the ability to detect outbreaks, including the ability to monitor changes in the number of cases over time (Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems: Recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group, MMWR, 2001). GHBS utilizes a data management system that can provide the proportion of cases of HIV/AIDS detected by the surveillance system. A comprehensive literature review of GHBS surveillance provided information about the changes in the number of cases over time. The information extracted from the literature review showed the rates of HIV/AIDS amongst IDUs in the Atlanta Metropolitan area and any changes with HIV/AIDS rates that have occurred over time from IDU Cycle II to IDU Cycle III. The rate of positivity for HIV in the IDU cycle II was 19% (87 participants) (National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System: Injection Drug Users, Fact Sheet IDU 2, 2009). The rate of positivity for HIV in the IDU cycle III is not readily available yet.
Sensitivity. A minimum of one wire type image quality indicator (IQI) shall be used on each film exposure, with the IQI positioned; Single Image – 3 IQI’s spaced equally apart throughout the circumference Double Wall Single Image – at R/H edge of the film interval Double Wall Double Image – in the centre of the Weld ImageFilm sensitivity shall be in accordance with ASME V and assessed on a single wall thickness plus weld reinforcement as applicable.Combined weld reinforcement (internal plus external) shall be considered as 2mm for thickness less than or equal to 6mm; 3mm reinforcement for all thicknesses greater than 6mm unless physically confirmed in each instance.
Sensitivity. Assay sensitivity on the Smart Cycler platform is affected by many factors, including the quality of template preparation, primer and probe design, and optimization of PCR conditions. Quantitative low copy detection is illustrated with an orthopox assay. [associated graphics omitted] Instrument precision Reproducible data is achieved through the Smart Cycler’s robust optical, heating and cooling elements. Run # N Mean Ct SD %CV 1 32 33.2 0.14 0.43 % 2 32 33.2 0.13 0.39 % 3 32 33.3 0.17 0.51 % Total mean (n = 96) 33.2 Total SD (n = 96) 0.16 Precision data: Neisseria ganarrahoeae assay at 5000 copies. *Confidential Treatment Requested by Celera Corporation* Dynamic range The Smart Cycler system allows detection over a broad range of target concentration. A linear standard curve can be created from a serial dilution, allowing the determination of an unknown sample concentration. *Confidential Treatment Requested by Celera Corporation* Five steps to real-time PCR
Sensitivity. The detection sensitivity threshold determines the ability to identify a cross sectional change. The maximum threshold sensitivity cannot be greater than 5% of the cross sectional area (CSA). The locations and estimated CSA of all metal loss features in excess of the detection threshold must be determined and documented. All defect indications in the “Go-No Go” mode above the 5% testing threshold must be directly examined, in-line inspected, pressure tested, or replaced prior to completing the integrity assessment.
Sensitivity. The analytical sensitivity of the DRG CLIA was calculated by adding 2 standard deviations to the mean of 20 replicate analyses of Standard 0 and was found to be 0.03 ng/mL.
Sensitivity. Over all trials, sensitivity (d') ranged across subjects from 1.4 to 4.2 (first quartile 1.8, median 2.2, third quartile2.7). Box-and-swarm plots displaying quartile and individual differences in d' values between experimental conditions are shown in Fig. 6. Again, note that d' is an aggregate measure of sensitivity that does not distinguish between responses to foil items versus other types of false alarms, but the statisti- cal model does estimate separate coefficients for target response rate, foil response rate, and a bias term capturing non-foil false alarm responses. The model indicated signifi- cant main effects for all three trial type manipulations, as seen in Fig. 6(a). Specifically, model results indicate no sig- nificant difference in target detection between maintain- and switch-attention trials (Wald z 1.07, p 0.284), but did show fewer responses to foils in maintain-attention trials (Wald z 2.54, p 0.011; estimated effect size 0.15 d'); a corresponding increase in d' in the maintain attention condi- tion is seen for nearly all listeners in Fig. 6(a), left column. Regarding spectral degradation, listeners were better at detecting targets in 20-channel trials (Wald z 4.09,== == == — =p < 0.001; estimated effect size 0.19 d'), but there was no significant difference in response to foils for the spectral degradation manipulation (Wald z 0.69, p 0.489). For= —the switch gap length manipulation, the model indicated much lower response to target items (Wald z 7.51,=p < 0.001; estimated effect size 0.35 d') and much greater response to foil items (Wald z 9.24, p < 0.001; estimated effect size 0.56 d') in the long gap trials.= =The model also showed two-way interactions between gap duration and spectral degradation [lower sensitivity in ten-channel long-gap trials; Fig. 6(b), middle column], and between gap duration and the attentional manipulation [lower sensitivity in maintain-attention long-gap trials; Fig. 6(b), right column]. The interaction between gap duration and the attentional manipulation showed increased responses to foil items in maintain-attention long-gap trials (Wald z 2.98, p 0.003). The terms modeling interactionbetween gap duration and spectral degradation were not sig- nificantly different from zero at the p < 0.05 level when tar- gets and foils are modeled separately (Wald z = 1.66,= == = — =p 0.097 for targets; Wald z 1.92, p 0.055 for foils), but the exclusion of these terms from the model did signifi- cantly decrease model fit...