The phrase "considered comparison" is not standard in written English and may cause confusion.
It could be used in contexts discussing the act of evaluating or analyzing comparisons, but it is not commonly recognized.
Example: "In the study, the considered comparison of various methods revealed significant differences in outcomes."
Alternatives: "evaluated comparison" or "analyzed comparison".
It may appear that the FS equalizer be equivalent to a multitap sub-channel equalizer following the standard structure and therefore that the considered comparison be unfair.
Although sociocultural and historical differences (e.g., the degree of centralization of educational policies) should be carefully considered, comparison such as that conducted by Butler (2015), who compared EFL education for young learners across four East Asian countries is a promising future direction.
The heterogeneity reported in this forest plot captures these aspects of the inconsistency, which are crucial for the considered comparison.
With regard to the rationale for chosen comparisons, code (2) meant that the reviews made a well-developed argument for considered comparison conditions and code (1) was assigned to reviews that discussed this only briefly.
Communities with higher than the median proportion (46.9%) of respondents aware of services provided by CBOs were considered study communities, and communities with lower proportions of respondents aware of services provided by CBOs were considered comparison communities.
While the net heat plot is sensitive to all kinds of perturbation that sufficiently inflate Cochran's Q statistic for inconsistency, the forest plot indeed revealed to be selectively sensitive to perturbations that are influential to the considered comparison.
In all cases, we considered comparisons significant at α = 0.05.
We considered comparisons including diuretics, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, aldosterone antagonists, and digitalis glycosides.
Furthermore, in our earlier work we only considered comparisons of disease against some control as interpretable, whereas here we considered interpretable comparisons derived from a wide range of different experimental factors.
They should also consider comparison with alternative treatments such as individual-level primary care-based intervention.
First, we consider comparison of TSG and k-TSP classifiers for binary datasets based on 5-fold cross validation.
