Field flux measurements agreed well with model estimates that were derived using measurable parameters rather than data-fitting.
This allowed us to compare variations in model estimates that were due to "between-source" versus "within-source" (i.e., variation due to different analyses).
Table 4 also illustrates the heterogeneity (and prediction intervals) around these model estimates that were largely explained by differences in prevalence of deep vein thrombosis in our included studies.
(The model estimates that there is a 58 percent chance that it has done so in this case).
Specifically, the model estimates that Mr. King would run a net of six percentage points weaker than Mr. Latham, controlling for other factors.
The model estimates that Missouri has an 8 percent chance of being the tipping-point state in the Senate, meaning that race determines the majority.
The model estimates that such a player has about a 20 percent or 25 percent chance of winning the championship in today's N.B.A. environment.
But it is a slight advantage indeed: the model estimates that Mr. Obama would have a 53 percent chance of winning the Electoral College under those conditions.
Indiana (down to 10.9 percent from 18.4 percent) This is a big decline for Indiana — the model estimates that its chances of winning the national title have dropped by 60 percent.
Instead, the model estimates that Mr. Romney would need to win the national popular vote by about one percentage point to avert a tossup, or a loss, in the Electoral College.
But these are only very minor differences — the model estimates that Mr. Romney gained a net of perhaps one percentage point in the popular vote after his selection of Mr. Ryan, and has lost perhaps half a percentage point since then.
