Free Access
Table 4
Correlation analysis of MH2 vs. LB, LFIR vs. LB, and MH2 vs. LFIR.
| Magnitude | Sample | Slope | Intercept | Slope | Intercept | |
| (bisector) | (bisector) | (LB indep.) | (LB indep.) | |||
|
|
||||||
| MH2 vs. LB | HCGs | All | 1.37 ± 0.15 | –4.74 ± 1.48 | 0.81 ± 0.14 | 0.73 ± 1.35 |
| T > 0 | 1.40 ± 0.16 | –4.94 ± 1.61 | 0.95 ± 0.20 | –0.43 ± 1.97 | ||
| AMIGA | 1.45 ± 0.08 | –5.61 ± 0.77 | 1.12 ± 0.08 | –2.43 ± 0.83 | ||
|
|
||||||
| LFIR vs. LB | HCGs | All | 1.47 ± 0.16 | –5.29 ± 1.54 | 0.79 ± 0.15 | 1.43 ± 1.49 |
| T > 0 | 1.31 ± 0.16 | –3.37 ± 1.99 | 0.77 ± 0.16 | 2.00 ± 1.58 | ||
| AMIGA | 1.35 ± 0.04 | –4.06 ± 0.37 | 1.12 ± 0.04 | –1.73 ± 0.38 | ||
|
|
||||||
| MH2 vs. LFIR | HCGs | All | 0.90 ± 0.09 | 0.41 ± 0.83 | 0.75 ± 0.09 | 1.82 ± 0.86 |
| T > 0 | 1.21 ± 0.11 | –2.63 ± 1.11 | 1.04 ± 0.11 | –1.00 ± 1.08 | ||
| AMIGA | 1.16 ± 0.08 | –2.14 ± 0.72 | 0.98 ± 0.06 | –0.46 ± 0.61 | ||
Notes. The slope and intercept are defined as log (MH2) = log (LB) × slope + intercept, log (LFIR) = log (LB) × slope + intercept and log (MH2) = log (LFIR) × slope + intercept. The AMIGA fits involving MH2 are taken from Lisenfeld et al. (2011).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.