Capillary width is a controversial parameter for scoring, because various researchers define and score it in different ways, and there is no general consensus.
A comparative biodegradation of terpanes, hopanes and steranes under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, Table 3, indicate that some of the controversial biomarker parameters can be easily explained by taking into consideration the microbiota and oxygen content.
Although the possible correlation between SUV and ADC values is still a controversial issue, both parameters may accurately predict response to chemotherapy [ 15, 48].
Fluid requirement calculations based on Parkland's formula and monitoring with simple data, such as hourly urine output and mean arterial pressure (MAP), are the most widespread approaches for resuscitation; however, it is controversial whether these parameters are sufficient [ 4- 7].
Issues that are controversial include technical parameters, such as the use of a radionuclide or visible dye alone versus the combination, the sites of injection (subareolar, intradermal, or intraparenchymal), and timing of injection.
The estimation process of these parameters is controversial.
Reformulating these approximations in such a way that the infinities could be isolated in a few parameters - a controversial trick - made calculations tractable and empirically verifiable.
However, evaluation using metabolic parameters remains controversial, as tumor heterogeneity, the partial volume effect, time of SUV evaluation, measurement method, and body size may hinder the exact assessment of tumor characteristics [21].
The optimal mathematical model needed to derive these parameters remains controversial, and different methods are available.
The central corneal thickness was positively correlated with CH and CRF in many studies, but the other parameters have controversial correlation with CH and CRF.
