A quantitative analysis was based on the percentage of stained cells and intensity of the staining, and was defined as follows: 0, no appreciable staining in cells (0 to <10%); 1, weak intensity in cells (between 10% and 30%); 2, intermediate intensity of staining (30% to 60%); and 3, strong intensity of staining (>60%).
This site was chosen for study because of its presumed intermediate intensity of exposure to agriculture.
Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging revealed moderate ascites and a 21 × 14 × 3 cm omental mass of intermediate intensity on T1 and T2 sequences; there was no lymphadenopathy.
However, the model predicts that intermediate intensities of habitat compression and fragmentation could improve habitat utilization somewhat by facilitating population dispersal.
Individuals mounting a strong response against one parasite might expose themselves to other parasites with negative net effects for fitness, again yielding highest fitness for individuals with intermediate intensities of any specific parasite type.
Although there is relative uniformity between the grading assigned by different investigators at the extremes of staining (grades 0 and ++++), variation is often most pronounced regarding the distinctions between the intermediate intensities of staining, such as between assigning a grade of + and ++ or between ++ and +++ for observed cellular density.
The intensity score was assigned for the average intensity of positive tumour cells (0, none; 1, weak; 2, intermediate; 3, strong).
Next, an intensity score was assigned, which represented the average intensity of CRBN positive cells (0, none; 1, weak, 2, intermediate; and 3, strong).
In addition to the proportion score, an intensity score was made based on the average intensity of staining, 0 = negative, 1 = weak, 2 = intermediate and 3 = strong.
When adjusted for each of these factors, the risk of progression was significantly higher for tumors with the highest intensity level of FGFR1 (level 3 or 4) (HR 5.92, 95% CI 1.49 to 23.56, P = 0.0115) and for those with an intermediate intensity level of FGFR1 (level 2) (HR 4.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 15.72, P = 0.0326) relative to the risk among those with the lowest intensity level of FGFR1 (level 1).
In the case of networks of intermediate intensity, nets, GPs are also required to share an electronic database of their patients.
