In multivariate analysis with HIF1α, IL1β, IL8, CCL2, CCL4, and stage M as explanatory variables, IL1β (b = 0.39; partial r = 0.65, p < 0.001) and HIF1α (b = 0.44; partial r = 0.42, p = 0.002) were found to be independent predictors of Nampt/PBEF/visfatin in nonneoplastic tissue, explaining 73% in its variability (coefficient of determination R = 0.725; F = 64.5, p < 0.0001; constant = 0.007).
The variability of GCS determination in sedated patients accounts for much of the variability in scoring APACHE II.
The observed quality control data were excellent [median (interquartile range; IQR) intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 0.25% (0.10, 0.51) to 0.3% (0.20, 0.69); intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.998; see Supplemental Material, Table S1], indicating that the variability of the determinations could be almost completely attributed to between-subjects variation.
The advantages of the information theoretic method has been demonstrated by comparing the accuracy of its parsimonious model to the models obtained by other computational methods such as PCR minimal models in predicting the regulatory components for cytokines with high variability and low coefficient of determination.
In this respect, we can define the difference (AT−Tβ) as the "latency artifact" (See Fig. 1A) because this is an obvious cause of variability in the determination of thermal thresholds.
To incorporate intensity and probe set-specific variability into determination of differentially expressed genes, we introduce novel methodology and an ad hoc t-statistic, called T-score.
This subsequent finding suggests that there is some variability in determination of alternate etiology by the same reviewer over time, at least for this case.
Furthermore, we devised a formula that incorporates a priori-computed, replicate-based information on probe set- and intensity-specific variability in determination of expression changes even without technical replicates.
To reduce interobserver variability, the determination of the areas was performed independently for each site by two examiners blinded to the experimental groups (A. A. and Y. T ., and the average of the two measurements was used as the representative area value of each site.
The high variability of data (low coefficient of determination) might explain this by considering the fact that when noise or variability is high, the threshold used in the PCR approach is high so that it identifies a relatively lesser number of components as being significant.
