The simulations reflected the variation trend of observations well but the model precision was poor.
Finally, TS precision was poor at all times.
At low SAA concentrations the precision was poor with a mean CV of 32%.
For samples that contained < 5 μg/L arsenic, the accuracy and precision were poor.
CLCR measures displayed less bias in comparison to sinistin CL, although precision was poor with either estimate.
However, this association was seen only in the highest tertile, and precision was poor because of small numbers (n = 10 "cases"); the results in this tertile likely also drove the significant association with the continuous patella lead term (see Supplemental Material, Table 2).
Replicate precision was poorest for concentrations above 0.080 mg P l−1, suggesting that concentrations above this level are contaminated.
Across regions, model predictions again exhibited low bias but precision was poorer than for PM2.5 or PM10 during the same time period (NMBF of −4.5% and NMEF of 42.5%, respectively).
Cell counts based on examination of microplankton samples using settling chambers and visual inspection with an inverted microscope are tedious and time consuming, and counting precision is generally poor at low cell densities.
Until improvements are made, those searching for qualitative research must be aware that the price of designing a high recall search strategy is poor precision.
