Nevertheless, the range of acrylamide levels in the samples was wide, as can be seen from the standard errors, minima, maxima and variances (Table 1).
First of all, the small sample size and the resulting precision of variance component estimation (as can be seen from the standard errors in Table 2) in diminish the generalizability of the findings to the typical operational application of the mini-CEX.
As can be seen from Table 3, the standard deviation and the MC error of each parameter are fairly small, but MC errors are much smaller than the standard deviation.
As can be seen from the table, the standard deviation and the average gradient of image (e) are the highest, which demonstrate that the image has better contrast and sharpness, and therefore is consistent with the subjective evaluation results.
As can be seen from the figure, the standard deviations for the two annotators are much larger because Annotator B largely outnumbered the other annotations (Tables 2, 3, and 4).
As can be seen from the table, the standard deviation and the average gradient of the image (e) are the highest, which demonstrate that the image (e) having better contrast and sharpness, and therefore is consistent with the subjective evaluation results.
As can be seen from Table 4 the standard error estimates are almost identical for the three methods.
Ignoring providers' profit makes the standard stronger than the TW standard as can be seen from the results on the extended CW standard.
Furthermore, it can be seen from Figure 4 that the standard deviation increases as the number of susceptible individuals present increases.
It could be seen from this data that the standard RECIST 30% cut-off for response has a tendency to overestimate responders and that the best outcomes are seen when response is 45% or more 12, 13.
