Similar(60)
This questionnaire consists of 20 items based on three themes: the conceptual model of the responder, the respondents' value judgments, and their practical response.
For chest pain, when faced with a 1-hour waiting time, responders value seeing a GP more than a practice nurse (WTP £376.27 versus £336.81) and are willing to wait 3 days (WTP £261.75) to see a GP if the chance of a satisfactory outcome when seeing a nurse reduces from very good to fair (WTP £256.00).
These were used to draw repeated samples for the median overall survival, PFS for non-responders, PFS for responders, utility values and treatment discontinuation rates.
PASI75 and PGA responses were binary end points, with value 1 indicating a responder while value 0 indicated a nonresponder.
Results are only reported for these 18 subjects, 13 of whom were classified as responders, Initial values were very similar to values reported by Mannerkorpi et al. [ 16].
Several reviews of the literature have documented the prevalence and potency of PTSD among first responders; the value of these extant reviews is considerable.
Normalized mean conductivity in ROIs from patients with complete pathological responses was significantly different from that of partial responders (P value = 0.004).
First, the proportion of patients achieving 5% weight loss (5% responders, a value widely considered as a clinically worthwhile weight change) [ 10] and the mean 9-month change in weight will be calculated in each study arm.
More importantly, H3.1 patients were associated with a better clinical response to radiotherapy (85 vs. 55.3 % of good clinical responders, p value = 0.0263), and overall survival length (OS), with a median OS of 15.0 months for patients with H3.1 mutations compared to 9.2 months for H3.3-mutated patients (Fig. 5c, d; p value = 4.51e−05, log-rank test).
(If you adopt this style, remember that responder needs extra values to invite or force to game).
Negative control wells were less than 5 SFU/106 responder cells, and values below this were considered negative.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com