The phrase "analysis was calculated as" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when describing the method or process by which a particular analysis was determined or quantified.
Example: "In this study, the analysis was calculated as the average of the collected data points over the specified time period."
Alternatives: "analysis was determined as" or "analysis was assessed as".
The % difference from the original analysis was calculated as: %kern0.5em mathrm{difrac{leftkern0.5emathrm{0.5em fReanalyzed}kern0.5emalyzed}kern0.5emathrm{concentration}-mathrm{m{Original}kern0.5em mathrm{concentration}right)}{mathrm{Mean}kern0.5em mathrm{concentration}}kern0.5em times kern0.5em 100.
As the factor loadings were similar for the four tests, the g score used in the analysis was calculated as the sum of the standardized test scores.
The offset used in the regression analysis was calculated as time per school crossing guard-month, as pedestrian volume data was unavailable.
Relative quantification analysis was calculated as: eff-ΔCT, with ΔCT = CTtarget-CTstandard, where eff = efficiency, CT = cycles at threshold fluorescent level.
The baseline for this analysis was calculated as the mean of the three pre-therapy time points corresponding to 1 h, 2 h and 3 h following moxifloxacin administration for each subject.
Based on the minimal Hamming distance, the correctness for all four types of analysis was calculated as follows: (30) 100 ⋅ 600 − minimal Hamming distance 600 − 600 ⋅ 100 − 1 ⋅ noise %, where 600 is the number of SNP sites in the simulation.
DFS and SDFS analysis were calculated as the period from the date of diagnosis to the first observation of any metastasis and bone metastases, respectively.
Ultimately, the overall quality of the extracted covariance (i.e., the adequacy of the least-squares approximation, equivalent to the usual Determination Coefficient in a classic bivariate linear correlation analysis) is calculated as the achieved percentage of total possible squared covariance between the two sets of synthetic axes.
The EARS algorithms applied in this analysis were calculated as previously reported [ 7].
All data for statistical analysis were calculated as mean±standard error.
The concentrations used in the analysis were calculated as the ratio of the metal amount in each PM sample to the air volume collected during the sampling.
