Ai Feedback
Exact(5)
A total of 249 SNPs showing less than 25% missing data (average of 3.9%) were used for population genetic analysis.
The percentage of missing data, average ungapped locus length, ungapped alignment length, and percent presence in the full dataset varied by species (Table 3).
In terms of handling sporadically missing data (average missing rate was 2.8 % with a standard deviation of 2.5%%), complete case analysis was executed.
The dataset contains very few missing data (average 72% complete, measured as the percentage of positions with data present within the total alignment), especially in the case of the newly sequenced taxa (average 82% complete, all but two >68% complete).
Feasibility was examined using rates of missing data, with any item with more than 5% missing responses considered problematic and any mode of administration (e.g. paper or phone) with consistently high missing data (average >5%) would be considered not feasible.
Similar(55)
The genotypic markers were derived from low-depth sequencing with 78% missing data on average.
For each dataset and missing data level, average R i 2 and R m 2 across the 10 missing data simulations were also calculated and referred to as R i 2 – and R m 2 –.
For example, even though each species had 81% missing data on average, we found that most species were placed in the families and genera expected based on previous taxonomy, often with very strong support.
Model 3 was also fitted using an objective measure of physical activity (average number of steps per day), rather than a subjective one (total METS reported via IPAQ), but this measure was only available in Walking Away and Let's Prevent, so missing data for average number of steps per day were not imputed due to the large quantity of such data.
None of the 57 candidate loci had missing data >5%, averaging 1.6% per locus.
8 Given that totals in Table 1 in each category include occasional cases with missing data; when calculating average sample characteristics, individuals missing that data are dropped.
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