Compared to the sample of 56 drivers in this work, a larger sample would have further enriched/improved the models.
The inclusion of a wider range of stakeholders, such as the media as well as politicians, in the sample would have further strengthened and potentially enhanced the generalizability of the findings, in addition to removing this potential conflict of interest.
In addition, a larger sample size would further strengthen data that trended toward, but did not reach, statistical significance.
Future studies that incorporate a genomic control for sample selection would further increase the reliability of results.
However, we believe that the number of players included achieved the purpose of the study, even though we acknowledge that a larger sample would have added further strength to our study.
Applying the triage approach at certainty levels of 90% and 95% respectively, 59.7% or 35.3% of the study sample would not need further assessment with DXA and 9.9%4.5%5% + 5.4%) or 5.0%2.3%3% + 2.7%) of the women would be misclassified as either osteoporotic or non-osteoporotic.
Such samples would have further elucidated the effect of IPT on infection diversity in the respective treatment groups and would have provided information on whether children attain the same diversity after a six months intervention period, i.e. reflecting tolerance to certain levels of diversity.
Note that this approach is extremely conservative, because any region that failed to show an RT effect in at least one sample would be excluded from further consideration even if strong effects were observed in all other samples.
A larger sample would also allow for further analysis of critical symptoms.
In those situations, each member has a different CAN, and chance co-selection in the 5% Medicare sample would be undetectable without further information.
