Comparisons between the predictions of both models for progressively increasing load have been conducted in terms of the cumulative overall damage volume in the thin-walled structure, the layer-resolved cumulative damage volume, as well as through spatially resolved damage maps for both models.
The only difference between both models occurs for the estimation of their transition matrices.
It should be explained that the difference between both models in R(S) value for a given deployment is primarily dependent on the number of the tolerable combinations of SNs in the relay mode.
These discordances could be related to the differences found between both models in the predicted structure for this region of the protein (Figure S3).
Both sensitivity and specificity were lower for the gene model, and the differences between both models were similar to the differences between equivalent models for LQTS.
Good agreement was obtained between both models and the actual conversion data for three types of UV lamps in various pilot reactors and water types.
The similar difference in mean RIC between the models for both training and test set provides some evidence that this result is not an artifact of a single data set.
Over the first 3 hours there was a statistically significant difference between the control group and both IAH models for potassium (P = 0.002), urea (P = 0.045), creatinine (P = 0.012), GFP (P 0.001), and urine output (P = 0.003).
Fig. 6 Comparison between the models for Pentest.
