Otherwise, we compute the probability that the base call r i (which matches v i ) is erroneous, by calculating Binomial probabilities for the three alternative bases x: (1) Pr X ≥ x = ∑ j = k n i n t k p j 1 − p n i − j where k = the observed read count for base x at position i.
Exact binomial probabilities for the situations of n out of n genes were calculated in each sample using the standard binomial formula, where the n is the number of genes identified using ESTs in each sample, and the probability that the differentially expressed gene of ESTs will exist in the same sample type of the MPSS is the proportion of the DES among total MPSS in each sample.
Here, the binomial probability for each was given by the observed SAR and the number of trials was the number of ferrets used.
First, the fraction of times one sample within a pair stained more intensely exceeded 50% was tested; McNemar's test was used, excluding cases where both stained equally, and calculated the exact two-sided binomial probability for a disparity as extreme or more extreme if the true proportion were 0.5.
We developed a simple mathematical model based on binomial probability for predicting rates of incidental findings.
The probability under the heterozygous model was calculated as the binomial probability of the observed counts assuming a probability of 0.5 for each allele.
For our primary (Bayesian Markov) model, we used binomial probability distributions for the proportion of discontinuations, the proportion of adverse events, and the proportions of early and late responders to reflect the uncertainty associated with clinical input in the cost model.
For the three genotypes that displayed resistance in both our field surveys and transmission experiments (sc78, sc96, ck311), the combined binomial probabilities for observing full WBD resistance (i.e. no infections) in both the transmission experiments and field surveys were significant (P = 0.043, P = 0.007, P = 0.001, respectively).
Figure 1B shows that theoretical binomial probabilities for random guessing (in case of anosmia or pronounced cognitive impairment, assuming equal multiple-choice success probabilities of 0.25 for all 4 odors) markedly differed from relative recognition score frequencies.
