Sentence examples for prone subgroups from inspiring English sources

As most data sets used in this analysis are not normally distributed, we determined the significance of the difference between the aggregation prone and non-aggregation prone subgroups by using Wilcoxon's test.

We also compared the effect size of prone ventilation in two subgroups of studies: those that included all ALI patients, and those that included the most severe patients (ARDS patients).

The fact that the test of interaction yielded only a trend to different mean effect size of prone ventilation in the subgroup of ARDS patients when compared with studies that included all ALI is not surprising given that studies including ALI patients also enrolled a substantial proportion of patients with ARDS.

We describe the rules obtained by applying our algorithm to seven publicly available datasets from the PROMISE repository showing that they are capable of characterising subgroups of fault-prone modules.

With respect to research on skill mismatch, individuals' motivation to learn may be able to explain why a subgroup is particularly prone to be overqualified (e.g., Levels et al. 2013).

This information is critical for identifying the subgroup of patients prone to more pronounced changes in their antibody levels during the disease course.

However, this result should be interpreted with caution because subgroup analyses are prone to chance findings due to multiple testing, or alternatively "regression to the mean" may have occurred.

Indeed, we advised caution when interpreting these results since subgroup analyses are prone to type II errors; that is, due to the reduced sample sizes, some imbalances could have occurred that - though not statistically significant - could have been clinically important.

As anticipated, the effects of prone positioning were different in both subgroups considered according to disease severity.

Our findings of significance were also reflected in the meta-analysis, even across different subgroups, which are less prone to chance results, indicating the robustness of our findings.

This caution is necessary because subgroup analyses are especially prone to false positive results [ 38].