Sentence examples for ratio of effects from inspiring English sources

(1), (2), (5), (7) and (8) as (10) where (11) and (12) Here, the non-dimensional number ε represents the ratio of effects of the wall friction force to the liquid-gas interaction force, and the non-dimensional number θ represents the ratio of effects of the gravitational load to the liquid-gas interaction force.

To test whether the microcosms diverged or evolved in parallel, we calculated the Index of Parallelism (Ix) as the ratio of effects due to chance and adaptation [26], [27].

Sensitization to nitrogen mustard (HN2), melphalan, chlorambucil, BCNU and CCNU was seen, but the shapes of the dose-response curves and the ratio of effects for 3 h and 5 h pretreatment varied between the drugs.

It was also shown that clusters of polymorphisms were effectively imported into the genome via recombination, which increased the ratio of effect of recombination-derived imports and mutations to 4.3 26.7 (Kennemann et al. 2011).

Figure 4a depicts the overall extra expected insured losses in response to premium subsidy rate by scenario and Fig. 4b depicts the ratio of effect (extra expected insurance loss) to total subsidy cost in response to premium subsidy costs.

We found more or higher quality staffing in not-for-profit homes (ratio of effect 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.14, P<0.001, I=91.6%) (fig 2).

When the only non-US study was excluded, we arrived at a similar ratio of effect for more or higher quality staffing in not-for-profit homes of 1.11 (1.07 to 1.15, P<0.001, I=92.4%).

We found less use of physical restraints in not-for-profit homes (odds ratio 0.93, 0.82 to 1.05, P=0.25, I=74.6%) (fig 4) and fewer deficiencies in governmental regulatory assessments in not-for-profit homes (ratio of effect 0.90, 0.78 to 1.04, P=0.17, I=59.8) (fig 5).

Meta-analyses suggested that not-for-profit facilities delivered higher quality care than did for-profit facilities for two of the four most frequently reported quality measures: more or higher quality staffing (ratio of effect 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.14, P<0.001) and lower pressure ulcer prevalence (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.98, P=0.02).

Non-significant results favouring not-for-profit homes were found for the two other most frequently used measures: physical restraint use (odds ratio 0.93, 0.82 to 1.05, P=0.25) and fewer deficiencies in governmental regulatory assessments (ratio of effect 0.90, 0.78 to 1.04, P=0.17).

Taking the ratio of marginal effects on incremental effectiveness and incremental cost, WTP for an additional LY saved is estimated at: (0.0001570/0.0014147)*100,000 = AUD11,098.