specificity

English - Turkish

Definition of specificity in English Turkish dictionary: (Tıp) özgünlük; (Bilgisayar) özel etken oranı; belirlilik; kesinlik/özellik; özgü olma
species specificity: türlerin özgüllüğü
domain specificity: Beliri bir alana (bilim alanı, düşünce alanı vs.) özgü olma durumu
asset specificity: (Ticaret) varlık özgüllüğü
encoding specificity: (Pisikoloji, Ruhbilim) kodlama özgüllüğü
organ specificity: (Tıp) organa özgüllük
symptom specificity: (Pisikoloji, Ruhbilim) semptom özgüllüğü

English - English

Definition of specificity in English English dictionary: The probability, in a binary test, of a true negative being correctly identified; The extent to which a particular diagnostic test is specific for a given condition; The state of being specific rather than general; The proportion of condition positions at which are non-wildcard values; An operating characteristic of a diagnostic test that measures the ability of a test to exclude the presence of a disease (or condition) when it is truly not present Specificity is the proportion of nondiseased patients for whom there is a correctly negative test, expressed as the number of true negatives divided by the sum of true negatives + false positives (Contrast with sensitivity ); how precise or exact a term or indexing language is in its ability to describe; the quality of being specific to a particular organism; "host specificity of a parasite; The specificity of a binder is the ability of its binding site to distinguish between the ligand to which the binder is specific and other compounds; The ability of a procedure to react only with the drugs or metabolites being tested and to exclude other substances A specific procedure is rarely positive if a substance is truly absent; thus, few false positive results will occur; a statistical measure of the accuracy of a screening test, i e , how likely a test is to label as negative those who do not have a disease or condition Contrast with sensitivity; The proportion of individuals free of the target condition in a population who are correctly identified by a screening test; The probability that patients without a particular disease, condition or injury will test negative for the problem by a particular test; is the proportion of people free of a disease who have a negative test Specificity; the proportion of true negatives detected by a diagnostic method; is the porportion of people free of a disease who have a negative test See also Calculating Sensitivity and Specificity; The chance of having a negative test result given that you do not have a disease (not to be confused with negative predictive value, which is the other way round); (of a diagnostic test): the proportion of truly nondiseased persons, as measured by the gold standard, who are so identified by the diagnostic test under study; when searching databases, this refers to retrieving a smaller amount of information that is highly relevant, but possibly missing some good items that are slightly less relevant; the sensitivity that a detector has for an analyte compared to its sensitivity for another, potentially interfering, analyte; The percentage of cases predicted not to have the target outcome when the outcome is NOT PRESENT - eg negative in health; Your exercise program is designed to meet specific goals Specificity is done by overloading a certain body part in order to improve or develop it Example ~ Lots of running workouts because you want to increase lung capacity and endurance; Proportion of people without the target disorder who have a negative test It is used to assist in assessing and selecting a diagnostic test/sign/symptom; A high rate of detection of "true negatives" i e , the fraction of patients who actually received bad care who are classified as recipients of bad care; the quality of being specific rather than general; "add a desirable note of specificity to the discussion"; "the specificity of the symptoms of the disease"; the quality of being specific to a particular organism; "host specificity of a parasite"; The proportion (or percentage) of people who truly do NOT have the condition of interest who 'test negative' for that condition; ability to determine there is no disease; high specificity has few false negatives and many true negatives; the number of true negatives divided by the sum of true negatives plus false positives; The probability of the test finding NO disease among those who do NOT have the disease or the proportion of people free of a disease who have a negative test; {i} quality of being specific; condition of being unique to a particular organism or group of organisms; The proportion of persons without disease who are correctly identified by a screening test or case definition as not having disease; Capability of biological molecules for selective and special communication This principle is used e g in the case of DNA microarrays; the ability of a chemical, synthetic or of natural origin, to distinguish between highly similar target molecules
domain specificity: Domain-specificity is a theoretical position in cognitive science (especially modern cognitive development) that argues that many aspects of cognition are supported by specialized, presumably evolutionarily specified, learning devices. The position is a close relative of modularity of mind, but is considered more general in that it does not necessarily entail all the assumptions of Fodorian modularity (e.g. informational encapsulation), and is a variant of psychological nativism. Domain-specificity emerged in the aftermath of the cognitive revolution as a theoretical alternative to empiricist theories that believed all learning can be driven by the operation of a few such general learning devices. Prominent examples of such domain-general views include Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, behaviorism, and the views of many modern connectionists. Proponents of domain-specificity argue that domain-general learning mechanisms are unable to overcome the epistemological problems facing learners in many domains, especially language. In addition, domain-specific accounts draw support from the surprising competencies of infants, who are able to reason about things like numerosity, goal-directed behavior, and the physical properties of objects all in the first months of life. Domain-specific theorists argue that these competencies are too sophisticated to have been learned via a domain-general process like associative learning, especially over such a short time and in the face of the infant’s perceptual, attentional, and motor deficits. Current proponents of domain specificity argue that evolution equipped humans (and indeed most other species) with specific adaptations designed to overcome persistent problems in the environment. For humans, popular candidates include reasoning about objects, other intentional agents, language, and number. Researchers in this field seek evidence for domain-specificity in a variety of ways. Some look for unique cognitive signatures thought to characterize a domain (e.g. differences in ways infants reason about inanimate versus animate entities). Others try to show selective impairment or competence within but not across domains (e.g. the increased ease of solving the Wason Selection Task when the content is social in nature). Still others use learnability arguments to argue that a cognitive process or specific cognitive content could not be learned, as in Chomsky’s poverty of the stimulus argument for language