The phrase "average measured values" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are discussing statistical data or results that represent the mean of a set of measurements.
Example: "The average measured values from the experiment indicate a significant improvement in performance."
Alternatives: "mean measured values" or "typical measured values".
Static water contact angles for each surface are reported herein and represent the average measured values obtained from three different samples.
The average measured values are shown in Fig. 4. for two different pupil sizes, a dilated pupil diameter of 2 mm, and a smaller pupil diameter of 0.8 mm.
Although the fast orientations for the deeper layer are not as tightly grouped as those for the upper layer, the overall pattern of modeled fast azimuth is in good agreement with the average measured values at the westernmost stations (black lines in Fig. 6b).
Rather than plot a single line at the average measured value, we have accounted for the error in the measurement of the plaque velocities by plotting regions of contour denoting the one- and two-standard deviations (for a detailed description see Materials and Methods).
Using the law of propagation of errors, we estimate that this systematic error combined with the above-mentioned and the previously described 2% error in the deflection sensitivity measurements [34] yields an uncertainty of approximately 39% of the average measured value.
As a result of these discrepancies, the overall MAE was 40% of the average measured value of radiant transmittance over the whole day.
Numerical results indicate that the calibration factor, defined as the ratio of the mean bubble velocity to the average measured value, depends only on the relative bubble velocity fluctuation, if the probe spacing is about 0.5 2 times the bubble diameter.
Trueness is inversely related to bias i.e. the greater the bias, the greater the discrepancy between the average measured value and the true value.
This recognizes that the average measured value may systematically vary from physician to physician: (1) Z ij = α + a j + e ij a j ~ N 0, τ intercept 2 e ij ~ N 0, σ error 2. The random intercept at the physician level and the random error term at the patient level are assumed to have a normal distribution with mean zero and variance τ intercept 2 = var a j and σ error 2, respectively.
The averaged, estimated SEAT values were compared to averaged measured values and significant correlation (R2=0.94) was obtained.
Since a systematic error cannot be normally/randomly distributed, averaging (measured value – reference value) is therefore an approximate representation of the averaged bias (systematic error).
