Sentence examples for values for the test from inspiring English sources
The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of Cmax (0.86 1.06), AUC0−t (0.96–1.04) and AUC0−inf (0.97–1.05) values for the test and reference products are within the 0.80 1.25 interval proposed by FDA and EMEA.
The 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax (87.5 103.8%), AUC0 t (89.3–107.2%) and AUC0 ∞ (89.7–106.0%) values for the test and reference products is within the 80 125% interval, proposed by FDA, EMEA and ANVISA.
Bioequivalence between the products was determined by calculating 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) for the ratio of Cmax, AUC0−t and AUC0−inf values for the test and reference products, using logarithmic transformed data.
Bioequivalence between the products was determinated by calculating 90% confidence interval (90% CI) for the ratio of Cmax, AUC0 t and AUC0 ∞ values for the test and reference products, using logarithmically transformed data.
The reliability of this presented system evaluated by the comparable agreement of EC50 and IC50 values for the test compounds with the reported ones indicated that this yeast two-hybrid-based approach is powerful for PPARγ agonist and antagonist screening.
The GI of the test meals was calculated by expressing each participant's incremental area under the blood glucose curve (iAUC) values for the test meal as a percentage of the same participant's mean iAUC for the three white bread control meals.
Predictive values for the test-positive results varied from 34.4% for a cut-off score of 8, to 46.7% for a cut-off score of 12.
The values for the test-retest-reliabilty, displayed as ICC are quite good, except for that of the scale 'reluctance to disclose mistakes to physicians'.
The values for the test-retest were inferior to those described by Morita et al. [ 5] for all domains, but results were comparable or superior to those found by Schuler et al.[ 7], except for the Constructive Attitudes and Approaches domain.
The predictive values for the test-negative results increased from 96.9% for a cut-off score of 8, to 97.2% for a cut-off score of 10, and then decreased to 93.4% for the cut-off score of 12. Table 4 shows the results of the validation of the algorithm score of the PHQ-9.
Accordingly, the P-values for the test of non-linearity were statistically or marginally significant in all fully adjusted models (P0.12).
