The phrase "assuming a group of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when you want to establish a hypothetical situation involving a specific group of people or things.
Example: "Assuming a group of students is present, we can begin the discussion on the project."
Alternatives: "considering a group of" or "if we take a group of".
That, though, tends to assume a group of consenting employers, all signed up to enforce bans in the post-PCC era.
As in Model 1, we assume a group of n = 3 to 15 members, which has to choose between a correct and incorrect choice, and one of the group members is an informed leader with accuracy of at least 0.5.
We assume a group of n = 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 members (we used odd values of n in order to avoid ties), having to choose between two options, A and B, for a single decision where A is the correct choice, and individuals make choices independently of each other (i.e., individual i's choice does not influence individual j's choice) [10], [13].
Using Figure 1 column 1, if we assume a group of 2000 40-year-old women, without screening, about 10 (4.8 * 2 = 9.6) will die of breast cancer over the next 15 years.
An estimated 61 randomized subjects per group were needed to achieve ≥90% power, assuming a group difference of 0.5% and a common standard deviation (SD) of 0.85% (based on relevant information from patients with T2DM and renal impairment), and using a two-sample, two-sided t-test with a type I error rate of 0.05.
An estimated 85 randomized subjects per group were needed to achieve at least 90% power, assuming a group difference of 0.5% and a common standard deviation (s.d). of 1.0%.
Assuming a group difference of 0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) between canagliflozin and placebo and a common SD of 1.0% (10.9 mmol/mol) for change in HbA1c, and using a two-sample, two-sided t test with a type I error rate of 0.05, an estimated 86 participants per group were required to achieve 90% power to demonstrate statistical superiority of canagliflozin to placebo.
Assuming a group difference of 15% during the study period, 82 patients per arm would provide a power over 80%, enough to detect a difference in the proportion of CAAs between the IVIG+CsA and the IVIG-alone treatment, using a two-sided, χ test at a 5% level of significance.
Assuming a group difference of 0.35 (SD=0.25), 10 patients per arm will provide >80% power to detect a difference in the reduction rate of serum VEGF levels between thalidomide and placebo treatment for at least 24 weeks using a two-sided, two-sample t test at a 5% level of significance.
Assuming a group difference of 30 points (SD=30), 18 subjects per arm will provide >80% power to detect a difference in LSAS scores between the conventional treatment arm and the arm with CBT combined with conventional treatment for at least 16 weeks, using a two-sided, two-sample t test at a 5% level of significance.
