Table S3 Sample Clauses

The 'Table S3' clause typically refers to a schedule or annex within a contract that lists specific details, such as products, services, pricing, or other key variables relevant to the agreement. This table is often used to itemize deliverables, set out payment terms, or clarify technical specifications, providing a clear reference point for both parties. By consolidating essential information in a structured format, Table S3 helps ensure mutual understanding and reduces the risk of disputes over the contract's operational details.
Table S3. Relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence interval (CI) for ED visits due to fluid and electrolyte imbalance (FLEL) associated with one day passed in the duration of heat wave. Heat waves are defined as periods of ≥ 2 consecutive days with temperature (T) or apparent temperature (AT) exceeding the 98th percentile using daily maximum (MAX), minimum (MIN), or average (AVG). The first day of the heat wave period is excluded. FLEL Day Sample size Lag0 R.R. (95%C.I.) Lag1 R.R. (95%C.I.) Lag2 R.R. (95%C.I.) Lag3 R.R. (95%C.I.) MAXT 2 29 1.06 (0.98, 1.15) 0.95 (0.87, 1.04) 1.00 (0.91, 1.08) 1.08 (0.99, 1.17) MAXT 3 18 0.93 (0.83, 1.05) 1.07 (0.95, 1.19) 1.18 (1.06, 1.32) 0.97 (0.87, 1.09) MAXT 4 10 1.11 (0.96, 1.28) 1.10 (0.95, 1.27) 1.04 (0.90, 1.21) 0.92 (0.79, 1.08) MAXT >4 34 1.05 (0.94, 1.17) 1.00 (0.90, 1.12) 0.97 (0.87, 1.09) 0.93 (0.83, 1.04) MINT 2 64 1.07 (1.01, 1.13) 1.04 (0.99, 1.10) 1.04 (0.99, 1.10) 1.01 (0.95, 1.06) MINT 3 44 1.08 (1.01, 1.16) 1.08 (1.01, 1.15) 1.04 (0.98, 1.12) 1.04 (0.97, 1.11) MINT 4 29 1.07 (0.98, 1.16) 1.08 (1.00, 1.17) 1.03 (0.94, 1.11) 0.96 (0.89, 1.05) MINT >4 95 1.07 (1.01, 1.13) 1.03 (0.97, 1.09) 1.00 (0.94, 1.06) 1.01 (0.95, 1.07) AVGT 2 35 1.03 (0.96, 1.11) 1.05 (0.97, 1.12) 1.04 (0.97, 1.12) 0.98 (0.91, 1.05) AVGT 3 22 1.04 (0.94, 1.14) 1.12 (1.02, 1.23) 1.00 (0.91, 1.10) 0.96 (0.87, 1.06) AVGT 4 14 1.09 (0.96, 1.24) 1.02 (0.90, 1.16) 0.94 (0.83, 1.08) 0.91 (0.80, 1.05) AVGT >4 52 0.96 (0.88, 1.06) 0.95 (0.87, 1.05) 0.95 (0.86, 1.05) 0.96 (0.87, 1.05) MAXAT 2 37 1.00 (0.93, 1.07) 1.07 (0.99, 1.15) 0.95 (0.88, 1.03) 1.01 (0.94, 1.09) MAXAT 3 24 1.09 (0.99, 1.20) 1.00 (0.91, 1.11) 1.10 (1.01, 1.21) 1.00 (0.91, 1.11) MAXAT 4 15 0.98 (0.87, 1.10) 1.15 (1.03, 1.28) 1.10 (0.98, 1.23) 0.97 (0.86, 1.10) MAXAT >4 33 1.09 (0.98, 1.21) 1.04 (0.93, 1.17) 0.93 (0.83, 1.05) 0.89 (0.79, 1.00) MINAT 2 35 1.02 (0.95, 1.10) 1.03 (0.96, 1.12) 1.08 (1.00, 1.16) 1.02 (0.95, 1.10) MINAT 3 21 1.04 (0.95, 1.15) 1.12 (1.02, 1.23) 1.02 (0.93, 1.13) 1.01 (0.91, 1.12) MINAT 4 13 1.16 (1.03, 1.31) 1.03 (0.91, 1.17) 0.97 (0.85, 1.10) 0.90 (0.79, 1.03) MINAT >4 27 0.97 (0.87, 1.07) 0.98 (0.89, 1.09) 1.00 (0.90, 1.10) 1.02 (0.92, 1.13) AVGAT 2 36 1.03 (0.96, 1.11) 1.11 (1.04, 1.19) 1.02 (0.95, 1.09) 1.00 (0.93, 1.07) AVGAT 3 22 1.12 (1.03, 1.22) 1.09 (1.00, 1.19) 1.02 (0.93, 1.12) 0.96 (0.87, 1.06) AVGAT 4 15 1.08 (0.97, 1.20) 1.04 (0.94, 1.16) 0.97 (0.86, 1.09) 0.99 (0.88, 1.11) AVGAT >4 45 1.06 (0.97, 1.16) 0.98 (0.89, 1.08) 0.95 (0.87, 1.05)...
View Source
Table S3. E. coli contamination in public drains by local sanitation coverage Within 50m of drain sample (n = 58) Within 100m of drain sample (n = 72) Main effect of modela βb SE(β) βb SE(β) Public toiletc 0.26 0.35 0.46 0.25 Any HH sanitation -8.74 x 10-2 6.80 x 10-2 -7.77 x 10-3 7.06 x 10-2 Contained HH sanitation -4.35 x 10-2 7.92 x 10-2 6.64 x 10-2 7.11 x 10-2 Minimally-shared HH sanitation ≤ 5 HHs/toilet -0.11 8.26 x 10-2 -4.08 x 10-2 7.82 x 10-2 ≤ 30 people/toilet -0.13 7.81 x 10-2 -2.27 x 10-2 7.97 x 10-2 aAll models are adjusted for neighborhood (Alajo as reference), population density around the location of the sample, and seas on of sample collection (rainy/dry). bEstimate is for a 10% increase in sanitation coverage within the specified radius. cPresence or absence of public toilet within 50 or 100m. Table S4: Adenovirus, NoV GI, and NoV GII contamination in public drains by local sanitation coveragea Within 50m of drain sample (n = 58) Within 100m of drain sample (n = 72) Main effect of model Adenovirus OR (95% CI)b GI norovirus OR (95% CI)b GII norovirus OR (95% CI)b Adenovirus OR (95% CI)b GI norovirus OR (95% CI)b GII norovirus OR (95% CI)b Public toiletc 0.42 (0.09, 2.02) 0.15 (0.00, 1.34)d 1.41 (0.28, 7.46) 0.56 (0.15, 2.12) 0.32 (0.04, 1.43) 0.79 (0.23, 2.65) Any HH sanitation 0.65 (0.44, 0.97)† 0.95 (0.65, 1.40) 0.91 (0.66, 1.25) 0.77 (0.53, 1.12) 1.06 (0.70, 1.61) 0.80 (0.56, 1.13) Contained HH sanitation 0.76 (0.50, 1.16) 1.19 (0.77, 1.84) 0.77 (0.52, 1.14) 0.99 (0.68, 1.44) 1.01 (0.69, 1.49) 0.83 (0.59, 1.19) ≤ 5 HHs/toilet 0.82 (0.52, 1.28) 1.22 (0.76, 1.94) 0.98 (0.67, 1.44) 0.92 (0.62, 1.36) 1.24 (0.80, 1.95) 0.80 (0.55, 1.17) ≤ 30 people/toilet 0.67 (0.43, 1.07) 0.94 (0.62, 1.43) 1.01 (0.72, 1.43) 0.79 (0.53, 1.18) 0.69 (0.40, 1.19) 0.87 (0.59, 1.29) aAll models are adjusted for neighborhood (Alajo as reference), population density around the location of the sample, and season of sample collection (rainy/dry). bEstimate is for a 10% increase in sanitation coverage within the specified radius. cPresence or absence of public toilet within 50 or 100m. destimated by Firth approximation 50m vicinity of drain sample (n = 58) 100m vicinity of drain sample (n = 72) Adenovirus GI norovirus GII norovirus Adenovirus GI norovirus GII norovirus Main effect of model OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) High Coverage Cluster 0.60 0.16 0.27 0.95 0.30 0.44 (0.07, 7.10)b (0.00, 1.94)b (0.02, 2.72) (0.12, 11.2)b (0.01, 2.75)...
View Source
Table S3. Internal consistency, intra and inter-rater agreement of relevant typical findings a.
View Source
Table S3. Category Statistics of 3-Facet RSM (Integrated Data, All Scorers)
View Source
Table S3. Regression results for resting state connectome similarity exploring the unique effects of abuse and neglect (N = 76 dyads). Unstandardized B (SE) Standardized β p F df p R2 5.02 4, 71 .001 .22 Abuse -.060 (.032) -.225 .046 Neglect -.022 (.032) -.063 .489 Parent Age -.001 (.001) -.099 .442 Age Difference -.005 (.002) -.330 .013
View Source
Table S3. Age-adjusted Incidence Rates and Incidence Rate Ratios of High Grade Endometrioid Carcinoma by Race/Ethnicity for 2004–2009 (Period 1) and 2010–2015 (Period 2) N IR (95% CI) IRR (95% CI) P value Overall
View Source
Table S3. Significantly differentially expressed genes identified using edgeR analysis of Pre- ADT Bxs and Post-ADT RPs.
View Source
Table S3. Median difference in FeNO and FEV1/FVC and mean difference in FEV1 and FEF25-75 in schoolchildren with wheeze when reported by (A) children,
View Source