The phrase "are less precise for" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the accuracy or specificity of something in relation to a particular subject or context.
Example: "The results of the survey are less precise for individuals under 18 years of age."
Alternatives: "are not as accurate for" or "are more vague for".
Other disadvantages of single-item QOL indicators are that they are less precise for specific treatment effects than multiitem scales.
The validity of registration of orthopedic procedure codes in Denmark has been reported to be good (correct in more than 92% of cases for outpatients), whereas numbers are less precise for diagnosis codes (Lass et al. 2006).
We investigated the hypothesis that global single-item quality-of-life indicators are less precise for specific treatment effects (discriminant validity) than multi-item scales but similarly efficient for overall treatment comparisons and changes over time (responsiveness) because they reflect the summation of the individual meaning and importance of various factors.
As with a previous report [ 2] only patients aged 15 89 years at diagnosis were initially considered as there is evidence that melanoma survival outcomes are different for younger age groups [ 17] and death certificates are less precise for older patients [ 18].
While recall bias is expected to be minimal for rare events such as emergency room visits and hospitalizations, the self-reported estimates may be less precise for common events such as use of acute medications and physician visits.
While the estimates were less precise for specific outcomes, any differences would be small in absolute terms.
This approximation is less precise for probabilities of events close to 0 or 1. Lastly, we did not consider the network geometry for our simulation.
The posterior estimate of the proportion of non-progressive cancer was less precise for carcinoma in situ (95% credibility interval 0% to 17%) than for invasive cancer (3%to4%4%).
The treated group was smaller than the untreated group and accordingly the estimates were less precise for the treated women, which should be acknowledged when interpreting the results.
The burden indicator has shown itself to be less precise for specific toxicity effects but responsive to the whole spectrum of treatment sequelae (Bernhard et al, 2002).
At a particular total sampling time, t tot, the prediction interval widened, i.e. the variance components were less precise, for larger block sizes.
