The correction procedure yields the SUR values which would have been measured if all scans had been performed at T=60 min. Without correction, there is a spurious fractional deviation that is roughly equal to the corresponding deviation of the actual from the targeted scan time (1/3 in this example).
To introduce intra-subpopulation cell-to-cell variability (termed herein noise), for each run of the simulation we sampled the values for the total Raf, Mek and Erk levels from a Normal distribution N around the respective initial concentration for a given set of fractional deviation from the mean (σ= μ· f d, where f d∈{0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7}).
On average the deviation is (−2.9±4.5) %. Figure 7 Fractional deviation of the automatically determined object volumes from the true values (at a noise level of FWHM = 5%).
Figure 6 shows the fractional deviation of uncorrected and corrected SUVmean from the known true value for GBPVC (A) and LBPVC (B) using the true object boundaries.
Figure 8 shows the fractional deviation of uncorrected and corrected SUVmean from its true value for GBPVC (A) and LBPVC (B), respectively, when performing automatic volume delineation.
The results of the automatic volume delineation are presented in Figure 7 where the fractional deviation of the measured volumes from the true volumes is shown.
As can be seen (bottom right), the fractional deviation of K s from K m becomes large only when k 3 is very small (i.e., when there is virtually no trapping).
Above critical coupling, there are two peaks at frequencies given by : \delta_\mathrm H, \delta_\mathrm L = \pm {1 \over 2Q} \sqrt {k^2 Q^2 - 1} :where δL and δH are respectively the low and high frequencies of the peaks expressed as fractional deviation.
Here Δr is the fractional deviation the run length r(n) from the mean the run length; Δr = (r(n)−<r>)/<r>.
GLV measures the average amount of GCC loss over the entire GCC map, based on the fractional deviation (FD) map.
When expressed as the fractional deviation from the starting CD value, extrapolation of the linear regression to k1,cd=0 s−1 yielded an intercept of 0.0807, indicating that one of the components had lost about 8% of the measured secondary structure signal at 222 nm with respect to the monomer.
