Table A3 Sample Clauses

Table A3. Distribution of patient results using each of the three screening methods with patients with unconfirmed negative results characterized as COVID-19 positive, n = 531 NTS COVID positive NTS COVID negative ROS COVID positive ROS COVID negative Attending physician PA COVID positive Attending physician PA COVID negative COVID 70 79 79 70 108 41 test positive COVID 104 278 138 244 61 321 test negative Table A4 Comparison of performance of three different ED screening methods with patients with unconfirmed negative results characterized as COVID-19 positive, n = 531 Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) NTS 0.47 (0.39-0.55) 0.73 (0.68-0.77) 0.40 (0.33-0.48) 0.78 (0.73-0.82) XX XXX 0.53 (0.43-0.61) 0.64 (0.59-0.69) 0.36 (0.30-0.43) 0.78 (0.73-0.82) Attending physician PA 0.72 (0.65-0.79) 0.84 (0.80-0.87) 0.64 (0.56-0.71) 0.89 (0.85-0.92) REFERENCES
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Table A3. Results, multinomial logistic regression (Bs): habitual attendants compared to consis- tently religious people Model 1 Model 2 Model 3a Model 3b Model 4a Model 4b individual individual + individual + individual + individual + cohort individual + cohort − − − − − − Intercept 2.517*** 1.354* 5.644*** 4.309*** 2.590*** 1.395 SOCON 1.205*** 1.063*** .691** .755*** .841*** .817*** Individual effects: Education .310*** −.059 .052 .047 .084 .048 Income −.081 −.164 .011 .014 −.052 −.026 Single −.049 1.034** −.043 −.045 −.012 −.006 * * * * * Christian socialization −1.168*** −1.950*** −1.241*** −1.257*** −1.295*** −1.306*** Male .261 .351 .346 .351 .351 .365 Age .004 −.007 −.005 −. 005 .016* .020** Degree of urbanization −.045 −.014 .005 .004 .010 .014 Changing individual effects Highly educated .012 High income .022* − Single .042** Christian socialized .035*** Period and cohort effects: Educational expansion Not tested .062*** Not tested .094*** Development of social security .055* .021 .072*** Not tested Changing patterns of cohabitation .067*** Not tested −.064** −.124*** Diminishing Christian socialization .016 .017 .012 .015 R2 Nagelkerke .293 .342 .347 .350 .348 .354 Number of respondents 6,949 6,949 6,949 6,949 6,949 6,949
Sample 1Sample 2
Table A3. 2 Comparison of survey respondents to the population on gender* PYW 2020 Sample (N = 856) n (%) other/ n (%) female n (%) male no answer n (%) female 2020 Population n (%) male n (%) other/ missing CDJA 40 (22.3) 138 (77.1) 1 (0.6) 586 (29.3) 1406 (70.4) 5 (0.3) XXXXX* 00 (50.8) 26 (41.3) 5 (8.0) - - - JD 69 (33.3) 137 (66.2) 1 (0.5) 1251 (28.8) 2809 (64.8) 278 (6.4)** JS 35 (36.8) 60 (63.2) 0 (0.0) 595 (32.0) 1252 (67.4) 10 (0.5) PpF 12 (42.9) 16 (57.1) 0 (0.0) 579 (40.7) 841 (59.1) 3 (0.2) PINK!* 14 (58.3) 8 (33.3) 2 (8.3) - - - SGPJ 110 (42.3) 147 (56.5) 3 (1.2) 2102 (49.1) 2156 (50.4) 21 (0.5) Total 312 (36.4) 532 (62.1) 12 (1.4) 5113 (36.8) 8464 (60.9) 317 (2.3) Note. Population demographics were received via personal communication. Nonresponse is excluded. *DWARS & PINK! do not register the gender of their members. **The JD stopped registering gender since 2019 (missing cases = 81). Table A3.3 Comparison of survey respondents to the population on age PYW 2020 Sample (N = 849) <21 y/o >=21 y/o n (%) n (%) 2020 Population <21 y/o >=21 y/o n (%) n (%) CDJA 45 (25.6) 131 (74.4) 274 (14.0) 1683 (86.0) DWARS 20 (31.7) 43 (68.3) 816 (17.5) 3850 (82.5) JD 44 (21.4) 162 (78.6) 414 (9.6) 3890 (90.4) JS 31 (32.3) 65 (67.7) 259 (14.1) 1579 (85.9) PpF 5 (17.9) 23 (82.1) 132 (9.3) 1290 (90.7) PINK! 2 (8.7) 21 (91.3) 17 (0.8) 2117 (99.2) SGPJ 122 (47.5) 135 (52.5) 2925 (68.4) 1354 (31.6) Total 269 (31.7) 580 (68.3) 4837 (23.48) 15763 (76.52) Note. Population demographics were received via personal communication in 2019. The age of respondents in the sample was calculated by extracting the year of birth from 2019. Nonresponse analysis: geography Is there a need to adjust for survey nonresponse by geography? Most party youth wings reported the distribution of their members over the various branches or provinces, enabling for a comparison with the distribution in the survey sample. Because the number of provinces in the Netherlands is too high in relation to the sample size to perform a solid nonresponse analysis, provinces are regionally grouped according to the NUTS 2016 classification of the European Union.298 This classification identifies four regions in the Netherlands: North, South, East, West. Table A3.4 presents the results. Again, no major 298 Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003, p. 30-31: North: Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe East: Overijssel, Gelderland, Flevoland West: Utrecht, Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Zeeland South: Noord-Brabant, Limburg deviations are reve...
Sample 1
Table A3. Descriptive Statistics of Biological and Social Fathers' Parenting at Five-Year Survey, by Biological Father Recent Incarceration Biological father recently incarcerated Biological father not recently incarcerated Biological father Social father Biological father Social father Engagement 0.478 3.654 *** 1.046 3.670 *** Shared responsibility in parenting 1.452 3.750 *** 1.674 3.583 *** Cooperation in parenting 2.705 2.814 2.738 2.861 N 26 26 36 36 Note: Sample restricted to observations in which mothers are living with the child's biological father at the three-year survey, have broken up with the biological father at the five-year survey, and are living with a social father at the five-year survey. Asterisks for statistical significance compare biological father parenting and social father parenting when biological father was and was not recently incarcerated. *** p
Sample 1
Table A3. Causes analysis. Sources and causes Risk area Risk º The trial is open label. ⇒ The subject is disappointed by his/her randomised intervention. ⇒ The subject withdraws his/her consent or is lost of follow-up. º The investigator forgets to enter some data. Validity of Study results The proportion of missing data on the main outcome is higher than the one used for sample size calculation. º The investigator does not attend the launching meeting or he/she has received no initial training on clinical research and GCP. ⇒He/she does not master SAE notification procedure. º The investigator is overloaded. Study Participants The investigator does not notify all SAEs. º Both variables Intervention and Sex are coded with the same codes. And the IT specialist has psychological troubles and lacks attention to his/her work. º The configuration of the randomisation application is not double checked. Study Organisation While configuring the randomisation result page (the randomisation list is stratified by sex), the IT specialist uses the variable Sex instead of the variable Intervention and decodes it with the labels of the variable Intervention. Table A4. Consequences analysis. Sources and causes Risk area Risk Consequences º The trial is open label. ⇒ The subject is disappointed by his/her randomised intervention. ⇒ The subject withdraws his/her consent or is lost of follow-up. º The investigator forgets to enter some data. Validity of Study results The proportion of missing data on the main outcome is higher than the one used for sample size calculation. The conclusion is wrongly retained. º The investigator does not attend the launching meeting or he/she has received no initial training on clinical research and GCP. ⇒He/she does not master SAE notification procedure. º The investigator is overloaded. Study Participants The investigator does not notify all SAEs. Toxicity is underestimated. º Both variables Intervention and Sex are coded with the same codes. And the IT specialist has psychological troubles and lacks attention to his/her work. º The configuration of the randomisation application is not double checked. Study Organisation While configuring the randomisation result page (the randomisation list is stratified by sex), the IT specialist uses the variable Sex instead of the variable Intervention and decodes it with the labels of the variable Intervention. The randomised intervention is systematically confounded with sex. ⇒ The trial results are biased.
Sample 1
Table A3. 1: The 11th Five-Year Plan and Financing Plan (FY2008-FY2012) Generation Linked Projects 12,947 Grid Strengthening Projects 3,637 Inter-Regional/Inter-Country Link 2,022 ULDC and Others 144 POWERGRID Public Sector Projects ADB 600 Foreign Borrowings1/Supplier's Credit 3,150 Bonds / Domestic Loans 5,875 Internal Resources 4,125 Public-Private Partnership (JV) of which JV Investment from POWERGRID (107) Private Sector Financing 5,000 Private Sector Investment Independent Transmission Companies Total 18,750 Investment Plan Amount ($ million) 18,750 Total Amount ($ million) Financing Plan ADB Staff Estimate. 1/ May include additional non-sovereign loans and MFF from ADB and other multilateral and bilateral sources.
Sample 1
Table A3. 2: List of Investment Projects by POWERGRID under the 11th Five-Year Plan (FY2008-FY2012)
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Table A3. “Ever Use” of WaterGuard and Sprinkles at Household and Individual-Levels
Sample 1

Related to Table A3

  • Table A Billable RU Server Categories Category Primary Capability Description Example Resource Unit(s) through CY5 Resource Unit(s) effective with Hybrid Cloud through the Term. Application Servers hosting agency business applications Database, Middleware, Webhosting/Web Proxy, Security Apps, Reporting Services and Performance Monitoring Apps, Collaborative (e.g. SharePoint) STM, HSC STM, HSC Physical Appliance Means a specialized computing device with pre-integrated and pre-configured hardware and/or software packaged to provide a “turn-key” solution. Google Appliance Consolidated Infrastructure Virtual Appliance Means a specialized computing service with pre-integrated software running on DCS Multi-Customer Servers, software and storage. Google Appliance, HSC Consolidated Infrastructure, HSC Email Servers providing Email Services Exchange, Groupwise, Remote email access proxy, Mail stores Email Account, no HSC STM, HSC Email - ADFS Servers providing single sign-on (federated) access to Microsoft Office 365 Email Services ADFS For DCS Customers with O365 Services acquired through the Microsoft Xxxxxx 000 XXX: Xx XX, xx XXX; $4,250 charge per server, incurred at stand up and refresh For DCS Customers with O365 Services not acquired through the Microsoft Office 365 OEA: STM, HSC For DCS Customers with O365 Services not acquired through the Microsoft Office 365 OEA bringing existing ADFS servers into STM at refresh or with new procurement, HSC For DCS Customers with O365 for Education: For existing servers, no RU, no HSC, 5 project pool hours/mo. per server until refresh; STM at refresh or with new procurement, HSC scope: STM, Server Installation Fee or HSC** For DCS Customers with O365 for Education: No RU, no HSC; $4,250 charge per server, incurred at stand up and refresh; 5 project pool hours/mo. per server Enterprise SMTP Relay Servers providing SMTP relay services to internal Mail servers and Application Servers SMTP Mail Relay host Email Account, no HSC STM, HSC File and Print Servers hosting End User corporate file shares or print queue solutions not inclusive of the Enterprise File and Print solution. File Shares, Print Queues STM, HSC STM, HSC Enterprise File and Print Servers hosting End User corporate file shares or print queue solutions as part of the Enterprise File/Print Services RU. File Shares, Print Queues Enterprise File/Print Services RU, no HSC Enterprise File/Print Services RU, no HSC Non- Consolidated SCCM Support Servers hosting PC images used for desktop support. System Center Configuration Manager Non- Consolidated SCCM Support RU, HSC STM, HSC Remote File Services Servers providing the ability to store, share and backup files using an online file server that can be synchronized to local storage. Ctera appliance Remote File Services RU, no HSC Remote File Services RU, no HSC Enterprise Gateway Servers providing End User remote access, and external file sharing. FTP, RAS, BES, Fax STM, HSC STM, HSC Presentation/ Terminal Servers provide for the processing of applications which have the presentation layer presented to connected thin PCs Citrix, Terminal Server STM, HSC STM, HSC Identity Management Solutions Systems independent from the Infrastructure Domain Services used to perform Identity Management functions such as define User access or to deliver services customized based on an “identity” or profile Oracle Identity Management, Quest Identity and Access Management, IBM Tivoli Identity and Access Manager STM, HSC STM, HSC Software Distribution Servers providing software distribution, remote management, asset inventory, and image development. Marimba, SMS, Ghost, LanDesk, Altiris, Image Servers Agency push to desktop – STM, HSC Agency push to desktop – STM, HSC SP – Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead SP – Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead Domain Services** Servers providing End User enterprise authentication and IP/Name resolution. DNS, DHCP, Radius, WINS, Domain Controllers, Active Directory, ISA Active Director Forests and Active Directory Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead STM, HSC *During a migration from Consolidated email accounts or Non-Consolidated email accounts to Microsoft Office 365 email accounts, the Charges for Email Servers shall change as described in Section 19.5(c) **Service Provider will evaluate a DCS Customer’s existing ADFS Servers at the time they are brought into scope. If Service Provider determines new ADFS servers are required, then the HSC shall apply. If new Servers are not required, then the Server Installation Fee shall apply. Infrastructure Servers and related disk and tape storage listed in Table B are not a billable Resource Unit and the cost to the Service Provider should be recovered through the other Server Resource Units. The following Table B provides the server categories and examples of servers considered Infrastructure Servers and are Non-Billable. Table B: Infrastructure Server Categories Category Primary Capability Description Example Resource Unit(s) Consolidated Data Centers – Infrastructure Network Servers and appliances that provide DCS network services VPN, LoadBalancer – No RU, Provider overhead DCS Customer- requested standalone devices – STM, HSC Non-DCS Network and Non-Consolidated – out of scope Enterprise Security Servers providing End User enterprise security management (authentication, protection, logging). Consolidated Data Center and Xxxxxxx Data Center Firewall, Server Anti-Virus, Intrusion Detection Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead Enterprise Backup Servers providing Third Party Vendor backup solutions. TSM, Legato, Backup Exec, Veritas Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead Enterprise Monitoring Servers providing Third Party Vendor monitoring, device fault management or capacity planning services for scope of services. BMC, EMC, Cisco Works, HP OpenView Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead Enterprise Scheduling Servers providing Third Party Vendor job scheduling solutions. Maestro, Tivoli Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead Software Distribution Servers providing software distribution, remote management, asset inventory, and image development. Marimba, SMS, Ghost, LanDesk, Altiris, Image Servers Agency push to desktop – STM, HSC SP – Infrastructure – No RU, Provider overhead

  • Table 2 Software Subscription Use Case OpenShift Enterprise OpenShift Enterprise Broker Infrastructure OpenShift Enterprise is intended to be used as a platform as a service and will be supported only when used in that capacity. OpenShift Enterprise is not supported on non-server hardware such as desktops or workstations. OpenShift Enterprise is intended for use on a dedicated Physical Node or Virtual Guest; running other applications and/or programs of any type on the Physical Node or Virtual Guest can have a negative impact on the function and/or performance. Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform for OpenShift and/or Red Hat JBoss EAP for xPaaS will be supported in accordance with the terms of Exhibit 1.B.

  • Table 4 Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum Changes Which Parties may end this Addendum as set out in Section 19: Importer Exporter Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum changes Part 2: Mandatory Clauses Entering into this Addendum

  • Table 3 Appendix Information

  • Table 2 (definition of “Casino Gross Revenue”) 15(e) 2 (definition of “Commissioning”) 19 2 (definition of “Committee’s Nominated Representative) 20(1) 6(1)(c) 20(2) 7(8)(a) 21(d) 11(1) 21(e) 11(2) 22(2) 11(3) 23(b) 14(d) 33(2) 15(a)(B) 35(1) 15(b)(i) 35(2) 15(c) 36(b) 15(d) 36(c)

  • Determination of Interest Rates for the LIBOR Floating Rate Classes The Interest Rates for the LIBOR Floating Rate Classes for each Interest Accrual Period shall be determined by Xxxxxx Xxx or the Paying Agent on the Index Determination Date in the month following the month in which the Settlement Date occurs and on each Index Determination Date thereafter so long as the LIBOR Floating Rate Classes are outstanding on the basis of LIBOR and the applicable formulae specified in the Prospectus Supplement or the Lower Tier Schedule, as the case may be. For any period during which LIBOR for any LIBOR Floating Rate Class is to be determined on the basis of the “LIBO Method” (as defined in the Prospectus), until such Class is paid in full, Xxxxxx Mae shall at all times retain at least four Reference Banks (as defined in the Prospectus). The Paying Agent and Xxxxxx Xxx shall have no liability or responsibility to any Person for (i) the selection of any Reference Bank for purposes of determining LIBOR or (ii) any inability to retain at least four Reference Banks which is caused by circumstances beyond their reasonable control. In determining LIBOR, any Interest Rate for the LIBOR Floating Rate Classes or any Reserve Interest Rate (as defined in the Prospectus), Xxxxxx Mae or the Paying Agent may conclusively rely and shall be protected in relying upon the rates or offered quotations (whether written, oral or disseminated by means of an electronic information system) provided by the sources specified in the Prospectus. Neither Xxxxxx Xxx nor the Paying Agent shall have any liability or responsibility to any Person for (i) the Paying Agent’s selection of New York City banks for purposes of determining any Reserve Interest Rate or (ii) its inability, following a good-faith reasonable effort, to obtain the applicable rates or quotations or to determine the arithmetic mean of such quotations, all as provided for in the Prospectus.

  • Accrual Rates All eligible employees shall accrue vacation pay according to the following rates:

  • Table 1b Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated courses of study for 20191 Cluster No. Funding cluster Number of designated undergraduate places (excluding medical places) for 2019 grant year (EFTSL)2 Number of undergraduate medical places for 2019 grant year (EFTSL) Number of non- research postgraduate places (excluding medical places) for 2019 grant year (EFTSL) Number of postgraduate medical places for 2019 grant year (EFTSL)3 Total number of Commonwealth supported places for 2019 grant year (EFTSL) 1 Law, accounting, administration, economics, commerce 340 0 25 0 365 5 Clinical psychology, allied health, foreign languages, visual and performing arts 19 0 95 0 114 6 Nursing 0 0 215 0 215 8 Medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, agriculture 0 0 5 444 449 Total 360 0 875 444 1679 NOTES:

  • Vacation Accrual Rates Laid off employees who are re-employed shall have the vacation accrual rate they held immediately prior to layoff restored.

  • Determination of One-Month LIBOR Pursuant to the terms of the Global Agency Agreement, the Global Agent shall calculate the Class Coupons for the applicable Classes of Notes (including MAC Notes on which the Exchange Administrator has directed the Global Agent to make payments) for each Accrual Period (after the first Accrual Period) on the applicable LIBOR Adjustment Date. “One-Month LIBOR” will be determined by using the “Interest Settlement Rate” for U.S. dollar deposits with a maturity of one month set by ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (“ICE”) as of 11:00 a.m. (London time) on the LIBOR Adjustment Date (the “ICE Method”). ICE’s Interest Settlement Rates are currently displayed on Bloomberg L.P.’s page “BBAM.” That page, or any other page that may replace page BBAM on that service or any other service that ICE nominates as the information vendor to display the ICE’s Interest Settlement Rates for deposits in U.S. dollars, is a “Designated Page.” ICE’s Interest Settlement Rates currently are rounded to five decimal places. If ICE’s Interest Settlement Rate does not appear on the Designated Page as of 11:00 a.m. (London time) on a LIBOR Adjustment Date, or if the Designated Page is not then available, One-Month LIBOR for that date will be the most recently published Interest Settlement Rate. If ICE no longer sets an Interest Settlement Rate, Freddie Mac will designate an alternative index that has performed, or that Freddie Mac (or its agent) expects to perform, in a manner substantially similar to ICE’s Interest Settlement Rate.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.