<P> The AMA Style Guide prefers the phrase Criterion Standard instead of "gold standard", and many medical journals now mandate this usage in their instructions for contributors . For instance, Archives of biological Medicine and Rehabilitation specifies this usage . When the criterion is a whole clinical testing procedure it is usually referred to as clinical case definition . </P> <P> A hypothetical ideal "gold standard" test has a sensitivity of 100% with respect to the presence of the disease (it identifies all individuals with a well defined disease process; it does not have any false - negative results) and a specificity of 100% (it does not falsely identify someone with a condition that does not have the condition; it does not have any false - positive results). In practice, there are sometimes no true "gold standard" tests . </P> <P> As new diagnostic methods become available, the "gold standard" test may change over time . For instance, for the diagnosis of aortic dissection, the "gold standard" test used to be the aortogram, which had a sensitivity as low as 83% and a specificity as low as 87% . Since the advancements of magnetic resonance imaging, the magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) has become the new "gold standard" test for aortic dissection, with a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 92% . Before widespread acceptance of any new test, the former test retains its status as the "gold standard". </P> <P> Because tests can be incorrect (yielding a false - negative or a false - positive), results should be interpreted in the context of the history, physical findings, and other test results in the individual being tested . It is within this context that the sensitivity and specificity of the "gold standard" test is determined . </P>

The gold standard of biomedical research is the