Suggestions(1)
Exact(5)
The expanded study (Wu et al. 1989) also stratified villages by their median well water arsenic level as < 0.30, 0.30 0.59, and ≥ 0.60 ppm.
For example, no two years differed in median well depth by more than 5 ft. Each year is represented by at least 90 values.
The data of Wu et al. (1989) with the addition of an exposure stratum of median well water arsenic level < 0.1 ppm were used to calculate cancer potency indices (Chen et al. 1992).
Morales et al. (2000) used the Wu et al. (1989) raw study data to model arsenic-attributed cancer risk, using village-specific census and mortality data and village-specific median well water arsenic levels rather than using the three-level arsenic strata methodology employed by Tseng et al. (1968) and Wu et al. (1989).
Baseline water samples ranged from 0.5 to 3 644 μg/L and the median well water arsenic concentration at baseline was 86.8 μg/L (IQR [inter-quartile range], 20.5-262.0) for individuals who survived (n=58,179) and 101.3 μg/L (IQR 20.5-263.4 μg/L) for those who died.
Similar(54)
We make this prediction based upon median well-being in a group of past infants with relevantly similar prognostic features.
The primary exposure variable is the median village well water arsenic level that represents one well for 20 villages and multiple wells (range, 2 47) for the other 22 villages.
Well multiplicity was examined as a surrogate for distinguishing between those villages that entered the analysis on the basis of a "median" village well water arsenic level (i.e., those villages with multiple wells) and those villages whose exposure assignment was not based on a median (i.e., single-well villages).
We have shown that the median geothermal well cost increases exponentially with depth.
A combination of using both the median as well as the mean rainfall intensities is proposed for the same.
For each sample size, we calculated 1,000 bootstrap estimates and computed the median as well as the 5th and 95th percentiles of the bootstrap estimate distributions.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com