Sentence examples for reproducibility score from inspiring English sources

In addition to the Bland-Altman plots, the reproducibility score (RC), defined by 1.96*SD of the difference between methods was calculated, RC=1.96cdot sqrt{frac{1}{N}sum_{i=1}^N{Logan}}-{DVR}_i^{2mathrm{TCM}}-frac{1}{mathrm{TCM}}-frac{1}{N}sum_{j=1}^N{DVR}_j^{mathrm{Logan}}-{DVR}_j^{2mathrm{TCM}}right)}^2} (12 where N is the number of ROIs.

In [ 19], the coherence score defined above is called reproducibility score and coherent genes (genes with high values of the score) are called "consistent".

We calculated the reproducibility score in a way such that assays with higher concordance rates and lower mismatch rates would be ranked higher.

A relationship between the coherence scores and consistent behaviour is predicated on the counter-reciprocal: if a pair of genes is incoherent then both genes cannot be consistent, and hence if a gene has a negative coherence (reproducibility) score it is "likely" (though by no means sure) to be inconsistent by being the "odd one out".

Approximately 60% of samples from each population were assayed twice to derive reproducibility scores.

Reproducibility scores of the dental caries examination and of the questionnaire items were acceptable.

In general, the reproducibility scores of A were lower than the reproducibility scores of B and C. We noted that the most inconspicuous LMs (over 30% error) were located on densely scaled wing locations.

The DST results had 100% reproducibility scores for the drugs tested, namely streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampicin, and ethambutol (data not shown).> -wrap-foot> Lowenstein-Jensennsen; MGIT, Mycobacterial growth indicator tube; MTBc, Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.

Reproducibility scores were performed intracoder (mean of the four traits 0.68; comprising disc height 0.77, disc signal 0.61, disc bulge 0.67, anterior osteophytes 0.66) and intercoder (mean 0.54; disc height 0.66, disc signal 0.62, disc bulge 0.56, anterior osteophytes 0.32).

A simple counterexample makes the point: create a fake Study 3 which is Study 2 with the values of the condition and control swapped; then by the above definitions, all genes are perfectly coherent for studies 2 and 3, having coherence (reproducibility) scores equal to 1; yet each gene which is up-regulated in study 2 is down-regulated by the same amount in study 3, so all genes are inconsistent.

Reliability is a measure of the random error associated with scale scores and the reproducibility of scores [ 15].