Exact(26)
The standardised difference between the reported sample size calculation and the replicated one is defined by the reported sample size calculation minus the recalculated sample size divided by the reported sample size calculation.
The reported sample median was the median of these values.
This means that in most cases the reported sample sizes are somewhat smaller than the total of 2×2269 = 4538.
The reported sample sizes differ from the original (n = 44,634) due to sample weighting and lagging.
However, in all estimations, the reported sample sizes differ from the original due to the application of sampling weights and lagging (dropping waves 1 3).
It is worthy noting that the present value of J is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than that of the reported sample prepared by sputtering using SrRuO3/Pt buffer layers[10].
Similar(34)
However, assumption of well-dispersed nanoparticles over-predicts the modulus in the reported samples.
The number of layers in the pseudoparticles (N) is different in the reported samples indicating the dissimilar levels of reinforcement.
Table 1 shows that mean achievement and the variability in achievement were similar in the reported samples (Mullis et al. 2008) and the analysis samples.
However, many of the reported samples contain very small numbers of subjects and are unrepresentative of their countries.
pos = most of the reported samples were CD44 positive, neg = all analyzed samples were negative for CD44.
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