This interpretation is supported by our observation that the highest proportion of the corrections was completed in Steps 2 (56.2%) and 3 (37.0%), i.e. a correct version of the erroneous sequence is present in other databases or can be reconstructed from fragments (Table 3).
The correction rates, the proportion of error corrected by each hand, were calculated with a linear regression model of the online correction of the left and right hands as a function of the initial direction error of each hand in that trial: (3) [ c L c R ] n = [ C L C L R C R L C R ] [ y L y R ] n.
Multidimensional scaling and proportion of variance analysis after correction for embryo from which cells were generated indicated that samples next clustered according to the transgene over-expressed (Additional file 4: Figure S3B).
Lending import to the calibrated probability values calculated by BNC, the proportion of URSA's accurate corrections of SVM's mis-annotations increases with higher probability cutoffs (Fig. 2a).
As a quantitative measure of the amount of correction, I computed the proportion of the initial direction error corrected by each hand.
Phylogenetic analyses were performed using the Maximum Likelihood method implemented in PHYML [39], with the Le and Gascuel model (LG model) including an estimated proportion of invariant sites and a correction by a Γ-law to account for rate among site variations (four categories of sites, an estimated alpha parameter).
GTR + G + I (General time reversible model, G: Gamma correction, I: proportion of invariable sites) [ 105, 106] was used as an evolutionary substitution model.
We simulated 25 bootstrap matrices with Mesquite and, for each matrix, constructed a maximum likelihood tree (general-time-reversible model; model parameters, gamma shape correction and proportion of invariable sites being estimated from each matrix; rearrangements limited to 1,000).
A two-sample test for equality of proportion with continuity correction was used to examine the associations between responses to each item of the CBE-Scale at the baseline and follow-up surveys.
ASD participants were slightly more likely to correct antisaccade errors [trend: t(22) = 1.77, P = 0.09; HC: 85 ± 13%; ASD: 93 ± 5%] (Fig. 2C), and did not differ from controls in the proportion of long versus short self-corrections [ t(22) = 1.50, P = 0.15, HC: 67 ± 29%; ASD: 51 ± 20%].
