Experts in analyzing test results were divided on whether the memo clearly indicated widespread cheating.
180 naïve consumers performed a set of 12 replicated triangle tests and, based on the results, were divided into one of three equally-performing groups.
The SEP results were divided into 3 groups: flat (no evoked potential), abnormal (evoked but delayed in latency), and normal (clear waveform with normal latency).
The study area was divided into 247 grids, then the EVI value of each grid was calculated by comprehensive evaluation and the results were divided into 5 levels by Zonal Statistic analysis of ArcGIS.
The results were divided into two groups.
The results were divided into four types, namely true, missing, false, and error.
Depending on the success rate, the results were divided in four categories.
To accomplish this, the results were divided into single sessions of acute exercise and chronic exercise, based on periodicity.
Clinical and demographic data were collected and the results were divided into two groups: those without infection and those with infection.
We compared PS with discharge diagnosis and results were divided into 4 categories according to the role of CCUS: crucial for diagnosis (A), support clinical data (B), ruled out diagnosis (C), misleading (D).
Pocket prediction results were divided into different categories for quality assessment: Correct predictions were termed "TOP1-hits" whereas "TOP3-hits" are predictions where the respective ligand is found within the three largest predicted pockets.
