As alpha was sensitive to the scale over which mark-recapture was performed, we considered separately alphas inferred from movement rates in study sites smaller or larger than the median length of the study sites.
After each alignment was performed, we considered only reads overlapping the previously defined differentiating sites.
Owing to the multiple tests performed, we considered a p value of 0.01 or less to be statistically significant.
Considering that pairwise comparisons would be performed, we considered a two-sided alpha level of 0.0167 and a power of 80%, for 1953 women needed in each group.
Because of the multiple statistical tests performed, we considered a P value of < 0.01 as the criterion to reject the null hypothesis of HWE.
Due to the number of tests performed, we considered as significant only the P-values lower than 2.5 × 10−4 (Bonferroni correction).
Fourthly, although no clinical assessment was performed, we considered hospital workers as "participants without a clinical diagnosis" and compared them as such with patients.
No matter where or when the scan is performed, we must consider the fixed cost of purchasing and maintaining equipment, paying the technician performing the scan as well as the radiologist who evaluates the results, and cost of maintaining the facility.
Then, the following screening is performed: we systematically consider each reaction of the network as a potential objective function and we apply the algorithm, searching for the most selective synergism capable of blocking this objective reaction.
Until such analyses are performed, we should consider the question of the impact of resistance on outcomes of bacterial infection as one for which more data are needed, but be guided by the abundance of evidence pointing toward a deleterious effect.
