Far from a consensus having established itself over the last two millennia, the relationships between these methodologies are the subject of increasing debate today.
The correlation between the three methodologies was evaluated using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); differences were tested for significance by the Mann-Whitney test for two categories and by the Kruskal-Wallis test for three categories.
Results for both IHC and FISH were available from 3,280 patients, and concordance between the two methodologies was calculated with defined categories of IHC-positive (IHC 3+), IHC-negative (IHC 0, IHC 1+, and IHC 2+), FISH-positive, and FISH-negative.
A flow diagram demonstrating the relationships between each component of the methodology is presented in Figure 1.
The difference between these methodologies is whether or not a slip of each segment depends on total rupture length.
Originally developed in the social sciences, the methodology is within- and between-group regression (WBGR) [ 15].
A new aspect of the methodology is the link between the experimental design and the model to be fitted.
The major difference between the two methodologies is how the residuals between the true function value and the polynomial surface approximation value at a design point are treated.
ComplOverlap approved three images less using G T 1, and two images less using G T 2. However, the consistency between the two methodologies is still verifiable with these results, given that, again, the divergence between the methods was small three and two images, respectively.
The results between the two methodologies were highly consistent.
