Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Waterborne Tebuconazole Exposure Induces Male-Biased Sex Differentiation in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Larvae via Aromatase Inhibition by Kun Qiao (6017606)

Subjects:

Mean scores and 95% CIs according to SARS-CoV-2 infection status and work-related determinants. by A. H. Ayesha Lavell (16734002)

S1 File - by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

“…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R²), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”

Detailed information on field experiments. by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

“…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R²), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”

List of symbols used in this study. by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

“…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R²), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”

Data sources for calibration and evaluation. by Yonghui Zhang (279832)

“…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R²), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”

Area estimates in CAKR by percentage of the mean LSR of the 3000–4000 m distance class (41.9) according to the posterior predictions model. by Peter N. Neitlich (4034300)

Subjects:

Scatterplots showing the relationship between anteversion angle (AVA) and mean joint contact forces during the stance phase, and neck-shaft angle (NSA) and mean joint contact force... by Hans Kainz (8459514)

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of immediate antiretroviral therapy initiation for treatment of HIV infection in Côte d’Ivoire: A model-based analysis by Eric N. Ouattara (6890174)

Mean (±95%CI) Rating of perceived exertion measured using a numeric scale (1–10) for the Nordic hamstring exercise, Sprint and control groups. by Nicholas J. Ripley (14709756)

Decrease in vRNA in brain during antiretroviral therapy. by Sonny R. Elizaldi (9684796)

Intensity-modulated proton therapy decreases dose to organs at risk in low-grade glioma patients: results of a multicentric <i>in silico</i> ROCOCO trial by Daniëlle B. P. Eekers (5560430)