Sentence examples for I inconsistency from inspiring English sources

Heterogeneity was assessed using the I inconsistency test.

Heterogeneity among studies was quantified using the I inconsistency statistic, which is a measure of inter-study variability as a proportion of total variability.

Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified by calculating I (inconsistency) values.

a95% CI: 95% confidence interval; CDC Centers for Disease Control and Preventionn; I: inconsistency; OR: odds ratio; SSI: surgical site infection; UTI: urinary tract infection.

In order to assess for inter-study heterogeneity in our pooled ORs, we calculated Cochran's Q homogeneity [ 38] and I inconsistency statistics [ 39].

Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio (fixed effect); Q, Cochran's x-based Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity; z test used to determine the significance of the overall OR; I, inconsistency; Finner's p-value, adjusted p-value for multiple comparison a The number of studies included are indicated b The first allele is the risk allele c Degrees of freedom = number of studies - 1.

These will be referred to as the i-inconsistency and n-inconsistency of the given node, respectively.

Under the assumptions of this section, the number of gains under Ai is |Gi| + 1, so when the i-inconsistency and the n-inconsistency are equal, i.e. ei + g = en, we have to compare |Gi| + 1 and |Gn|.

There are also modifications to the PARS-G and PARS-U versions of PARS under the assumption of this section; these apply when the i-inconsistency is equal to the n-inconsistency, i.e. ei = en.

At any node, i-inconsistency and n-inconsistency of a gene are related by the following inequalities: en ≤ g + ei, ei ≤ 1 + en Since an i-parsimonious scenario inherits the gene at the node, we may construct a non-inheritance scenario that includes a gain of the gene at the node together with all the subsequent events of the i-parsimonious scenario.

In this paper we identify two main challenges with current ecosystem services classification systems: i) the inconsistency across concepts, terminology and definitions, and; ii) the mix up of processes and end-state benefits, or flows and assets.