The range of R 2 values reported for the pseudo-second-order model was from 0.67 to 0.98 compared to the low values of R 2 observed for the pseudo-first-order model.
Such criteria were also used to evaluate how far the prediction obtained with the isotropic model was from the prediction obtained with the actual anisotropic properties of the rock.
I therefore used Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) to determine how different the best interpretable model was from the AIC-best model [51].
For some analyses, a full-interaction model resulted in far too many terms to be readily interpretable; I used Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) to determine how different the best interpretable model was from the AIC-best model [58].
The animal model was from another study from which controls were shared.
The second set of data used to optimize the model was from Poiger and Schlatter (1986), in which a single volunteer received a single oral dose of 1.14 ng TCDD/kg and was followed for 40 days.
