Sentence examples for confidence boundary from inspiring English sources

The upper 95% confidence boundary indicating worst-case scenario based on the Hofmann et al. data follows the power function d CS = 3949S −0.585 (see Fig. 1).

Median time to progression was 50 days (95% confidence interval, 28-70), with median overall survival time of 194 days (95% lower confidence boundary, 151), similar to the progression and survival times reported for this patient group with other agents.

Considering the assessment based on the observed data of [2, 3], these thresholds can be consistently attained only at a kilometre or farther (1000 m; mean leaf pollen density with Urtica 'realistic' mean regression = 1.6 n/cm2; upper 95% confidence boundary for 'worst case' scenario = 69 n/cm2).

Hofmann et al. [3] observed high variability in Urtica leaf pollen density values with a 95% upper confidence boundary of 2270 n/cm2 and maximum leaf density values of up to 13,802 n/closelose to the pollen source (0.2 m).

The corresponding dose distance relationship indicating the 'worst case' scenario (1 in 40 cases; WC) is given by the upper 95% confidence boundary for leaf density values (cyan line) by Eq. 2: {text{WC}};d_{text{WC}} = 3949S^{ - 0.585} quadtext{or} quadtext{log}_{10} d_{text{WC}} = 3.596- 0.585 {text{log}}_{10} S. (2).

In the intent-to-treat analysis with 57 in each group, the upper 97.5% confidence boundary for the difference between the 80.7% (46 of 57) non-failures in the 5 days on/2 days off, and the 70.2% (40 of 57) non-failures in the continuously treated arm was 5.4% which is again well within the preset non-inferiority margin of 15%.

This set is then retained to obtain the Response Surface (RS) with its Statistical Confidence Boundaries (SCB).

This paper deals with the use of Statistical Confidence Boundaries (SCB) of response surfaces in robust design optimization.

Based on the measurements the Wöhler curves of the foams were constructed, including the median curves, their confidence boundaries and the fatigue strength.

Further, we included the 95% confidence boundaries mentioned by Lang et al. [35].

Also shown in the plot are the α =1, 5, and 10% confidence boundaries.