The phrase "accepted error of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing standards, measurements, or tolerances in various fields such as science, engineering, or statistics.
Example: "The accepted error of the measurement must be taken into account when analyzing the results."
Alternatives: "standard margin of error" or "recognized error range".
The accepted error of mass difference was below 0.02 Da, while the accepted difference of abundances was below 10%%.
As it can be seen, they are very close as further confirmed by the PK data; the AUC0 t calculated on diosmetin after glucuronidase digestion is just 3.4%% higher than the one calculated on the sum of the diosmetine glucuronide metabolites (data calculated on molar basis), such difference is within the accepted error of the analytical method.
As an example, if we consider the median ρ = 0,029, the standard sample size calculations using simple random sampling with 95% confidence interval for an estimated prevalence of 5% and an accepted error of 1% needs to be inflated by a factor of: D = 1 + 0,029 n-1), n being the average cluster size and D the design effect.
Assuming an expected maximal prevalence of 1% for virus positive animals, with a CI of 95% and an accepted error of 5%, we obtained a sample size of 96 (population size [PS] = 100) to 299 (PS = ∞) animals for detection of disease.
Sampling was carried out from August 2009 to April 2011, and the required sample size for "detection of disease" was calculated with the WinEpiscope 2.0 software package [ 44], assuming an expected maximal prevalence of 1% for virus positive animals, with a confidence interval of 95% and an accepted error of 5%.
The lawyers have accepted errors of judgment and broader mistakes by the command structures but say the accused are not to blame.
In most of the 16 cases, Couling accepts errors of one sort or another had occurred.
Expected herd prevalence was set at 55.6% based on herd prevalence of brucellosis reported for Mbarara [8], with accepted error and level of confidence set at 5% and 95% respectively.
The expected herd prevalence was set to 55.6% based on the brucellosis herd prevalence in Mbarara [ 13], with an accepted error and level of confidence selected as ±5% and 95% respectively.
The sample size for the study was determined as described by Thrusfield [ 10] taking an estimated prevalence of 33.27 % of mange mites [ 11]; accepted error 5%% and confidence level of 95%%.
See if the breath test result was in the range of accepted errors.
