Exact(1)
We could not obtain detailed information on certain variables such as atopic sensitisation data or smoking history (eg, duration or the number of cigarettes a day) but we assumed these data to be missing at random (ie, it is subject to non-differential misclassification bias for comparison groups of interest).
Similar(59)
For simplifying the following explanation, we assume these data are centered, i.e., ∑ i = 1 N ϕ ( x i ) = 0. (1).
Assuming these data for leaf deposition and worst-case exposure of lepidopteran larvae (Inachis io on Urtica dioica leaves), a mean pollen density at the field edge of 66.3 n/cm2 over 7 days and on leaves of 9.5 n/cm2 per day was calculated by Perry et al. [8, Appendix].
Testing the hypotheses in this way avoids assuming these data were normally distributed or had equal variances.
Due to difficulties in real-time measurement of ground motion acceleration and also intrinsic uncertain nature of structural damping, it is assumed that these data are not available for control purposes.
Even if the unpublished force-diameter data of 'Veronese' poplar roots from Watson et al.1 used in the calculation were obtained for root material from a different location than PN and G, it was assumed that these data were, on average, representative for the studied field conditions.
Many published studies of HPAI H5N1 have used different data sources and have assumed that these data are valid and reliable.
We assumed that these data would be normally distributed.
According to the definition by West et al. [ 29], normal distribution was assumed for these data.
In our assessment, we assumed that these data existed and did not include this as an evaluation criteria, as population data would not routinely be collected during a health facility assessment.
Because the data used in this study were based on in silico search strategies from deposited sequences in public repositories (GenBank and GenPept), it cannot be assumed that these data are necessarily complete for each species (i.e., a de novo sequencing was not performed for each species studied).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com