"mean percent difference" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
You might use it to compare the differences between two sets of data. For example, "We found a mean percent difference of 7.3 between the results of our experiment and the control group."
Generally, negative mean differences were observed across most forest types, indicating that climate-adjusted models predict greater belowground C stocks (e.g., mean percent difference was −5.2 % greater across all forest types; Table 1).
Generally, negative mean differences were observed across most forest types, indicating that climate-adjusted models predict greater belowground C stocks (e.g., mean percent difference was −5.2%% greater across all forest types; Table 1).
Mean percent difference is −3.2%%.
Results yielded a mean percent difference between LED-treated anon-LED-treatedted HRS of 31% in levels of type-1 procollagen and of -18% in MMP-1.
The distances are based on the mean percent difference in cognacy, using the 200 Swadesh words.
Stability was judged by determining the mean percent difference from the time-zero samples.
To be specific, these previous studies both reported mean percent differences of approximately 10%, which were not significantly different.
Mean percent differences for all 15O-water metrics were within ±10%%.
Despite this significant difference, mean percent differences between uncorrected and corrected SUVmean in the first and the second experiments were -3.61 and -1.78, respectively.
Bland Altman analyses showed that mean percent differences between uncorrected and corrected SUVmean values in the first and second experiments were −3.61 and −1.78, respectively (Fig. 4b, d).
We computed US state-level population estimates of belowground C (Tg) using BGCNGHGI and BGCClimAdj models and compared mean percent differences for the two estimation strategies.
