When the protein concentration in the lung was high, the s-Cath method is a better method for estimating protein concentration; in contrast, as inflammation increases, both methods provide similar estimates of the percentage of neutrophils in the air spaces of the lung.
Based on results from both surveillance methods, the estimated dog density was 7.0/100 persons, with an immunization coverage of 36.4%; the estimated cat density was 1.8/100 persons with an immunization coverage of 15.6%.
With both methods, the detection threshold was estimated to be lower than 3.2.10−2 µmol/L.
It is notable that, for both methods, the magnitude of the risk estimates associated with one s.d.
Due to limitations of both methods, the citation numbers are only rough estimates.
Due to limitations of both methods, the citation numbers are only rough estimates and likely undercount actual citations.
Indeed, if the observed decrease of H-bond acidity upon o, o′-difluorination of the phenyl ring is rather equivalently estimated with both methods, the increase upon o-monofluorination is much more properly described at the DFT level.
For both the SEV and the GPD methods, the estimated largest inclusion size is relatively insensitive to the number of sample areas but, as might be expected, the width of the confidence interval decreases steeply as the number of sample areas increases.
When using the true allele frequencies, ≈ 0 is obtained, whereas when using allele frequencies estimated from the observed genotypes, = 1 is obtained for both methods estimating the allele frequencies.
The results also demonstrate that both methods of estimating the residual stress give quantitatively similar results.
