There was significant agreement in ranking of patient samples by cpm (r = 0.23, P < 0.0001) and local IA-2βA units (r = 0.37, P < 0.0001), but there were large variations between assays (data not shown).
In our method, f i is also called the ranking score of sample i, which we use to rank the unknown samples.
Given a ranking list of sample predictions, each sample point in the list can be used as a cutoff point.
Current monitoring and the innovative approaches taken together can provide a clear spatio-temporal ranking across samples in terms of frequency and degree of exceedance of criteria (if available for measured chemicals), combined with exceedance of (independent) effect-related signals.
When the leaf bud/leaf and mature organ subsets of samples were considered, the rankings varied considerably (Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2).
Class difference ranking scores reflect the difference in the percentages of samples in class I and class E with significant enrichment scores.
Some R packages exist for comparing two groups of samples [ 17, 18, 20, 21], and each package uses its own normalization method and gene ranking algorithm.
The organizers performed a robustness analysis of the rankings by sampling 10% of the gold standard against which to rescore the teams.
The dominance of European cities in the rankings is partly a function of sample: there are more of them on the overall list.
The results generated a ranking of choices.
