The phrase "assuming the difference of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in mathematical or analytical contexts where you are considering a scenario based on a specific difference between two values or variables.
Example: "Assuming the difference of the two measurements is negligible, we can proceed with the experiment."
Alternatives: "given the difference of" or "considering the difference of".
We used their utility values and confidential intervals adjusted by 12-month values as our utility inputs (In fact, Topcu et al[ 4] indicated the difference in utility between LC and OC at 36 months. We took conservative estimation, assuming the difference of utility lasted by 12 months).
For the subgroup of people with HbA1c ≥ 7%: assuming the difference of 0.4% between the control and intervention group (7.8% vs 7.4%) [ 4] and the standard deviation of 0.94% as observed within this subgroup at the baseline data analysis, we would need 232 people in both arms to achieve a power of 0.90 in this subgroup.
Assuming the difference between the sum of all other activities and the total amount of time was spent in this depth interval, the total activity patterns from moult to breeding can be estimated (Fig. 9).
Assuming the difference between the maximum velocities of EF-Tu in the presence and absence of EF-Ts to be the velocity of EF-Ts, then the turnover number (kcatobs) for EF-Ts can be predicted.
Then, assuming both lines have an accumulated inbreeding coefficient of F since the base populations, equating expectations: since it is assumed the difference is a result of drift.
An attempt has been made to predict coalescence times at low solute concentration (no oscillation) by assuming that the difference of interfacial tension causes the film drainage and leads to the drop coalescence.
Measurement of type-II error was not preplanned in present study and this is of course a shortcoming of this study because assuming the percent difference of PFO frequency between the tension headache patients and the control group to be 7% (23 16%) with an α = 0.05, the post hoc type-II error of the study would be 0.82.
Assuming the mean difference of LN yield between the two groups was 2 with a standard deviation of 4, a lost to follow-up proportion of 5%, and with a power of 80% at a significance level of 5% (two-tailed Student's t-test), 70 patients were enrolled in this trail.
Because of the different findings, it was assumed that the difference of toxikokinetics in ruminants and monogastrics might be the consequence of their species-specific digestive system.
Because the analysis of variance and the Scheffé method used by Adams assume equal variances for all means, it is reasonable to assume that the difference of 2.85% between 0.06 ppm and FA approached statistical significance even with this most conservative methodology.
We assume that the difference of the range due to the array positions is negligible.
