The phrase "a comparison of the sample" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the analysis or evaluation of a sample in relation to other samples or standards.
Example: "The study conducted a comparison of the sample with previous research findings to identify any significant differences."
Alternatives: "an analysis of the sample" or "a contrast of the sample".
Data analysis focused on a comparison of the sample groups obtained via the separate RDS arms.
Table 1 presents a comparison of the sample characteristics with those of the Australian population as derived from the Australian census in 2001.
A comparison of the sample with non-responders revealed no significant differences regarding age, gender, location of practice, working experience of physicians, working in a multidisciplinary team, or overall satisfaction with the health care system [ 6].
A comparison of the sample retained at age 43 and 53 with population census data has shown that the NSHD survey members are generally representative of the national population of a similar age [ 32].
A comparison of the sample of patients on whom telephone interview was achieved with those on whom it was not (see Table 1 >) showed small but statistically significant differences in age and gender.
However, a comparison of the sample population with the general population of all Swiss primary care providers indicated no difference with reference to geographic location of practices and gender of physicians, clinical data of the project including patient perceived health status with regard to other recent research in Swiss primary care showed also no difference[ 13].
A comparison of the sampling designs obtained with and without the moment constraints points to their importance in ensuring a robust long-term monitoring design that is both cost-effective and accurate in mass and moment estimations.
A comparison of the sampling groups in an unconditional random-effect regression effect model did not reveal significant sampling site contributions.
A comparison of the samples collected 3 months postexposure with samples from the same individuals 16 months after exposure revealed a decline in the frequency of complete symmetrical translocations.
A comparison of the samples prepared from cells treated with/without HU in Figure 1(D) indicates that any amount of HBP/SLBPΔE2+ΔE3 protein produced in HU treated cells was not significantly above the background signal also present in the protein sample from S-phase cells.
At raw P-values < 0.1, a comparison of the samples yields 3,933 differentially expressed genes while the P-values adjusted to control the false discovery rate (FDR) by the method of Benjamini and Hochberg ranged from 0.08 up to 0.66, potentially resulting in a large number of false discoveries.
