ライフサイエンスコーパス: Fisher

1 Fisher Discriminant Analysis enables multivariate classi

2 Fisher Exact test assessed associations with CTR, and Ka

3 Fisher exact test showed that gender, age, marital statu

4 Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical data.

5 Fisher exact test was used to compare the groups.

6 Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportion of

7 Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney test, Spearman correlati

8 Fisher exact tests were used to compare patients who tes

9 Fisher exact, chi(2), and Kruskal-Wallis tests and analy

10 Fisher exact, Pearson chi(2), and Student t tests were a

11 Fisher's exact and non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test

12 Fisher's exact test was used to detect differences betwe

13 Fisher's exact test was used to determine difference in

14 Fisher's exact test was used to screen for association w

15 Fisher's linear discriminant analysis method was employe

16 Fisher-hunter-gatherer economies are not the preserve of

17 3 (3.6%) sequences with DRMinVs (P < .00001, Fisher exact test).

18 torical adherence rate of 18.7% (P < 0.0001, Fisher exact test).

19 er mesh-augmented reinforcement (P < 0.0001; Fisher exact test).

20 ppeared to provide better coverage (p<0.001, Fisher's exact) for Strep than AMK.

21 the aorta and tetralogy of Fallot (P=0.002; Fisher exact test).

22 missense variants was nonreported (P=0.007; Fisher exact probability test).

23 of 5 animal with non-inducible VT (P < 0.01, Fisher's exact test).

24 and other-GP bacteria respectively (p<0.05, Fisher's exact), however, CEF appeared to provide better

25 ont than PDACs without dMMR or MSI (P = .08; Fisher exact test).

26 Unpaired Student t, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to a

27 Student t, Mann-Whitney, chi(2), Fisher exact, and McNemar tests were used, as appropriat

28 ivariate analysis was performed with chi(2), Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

29 red to controls (OR = 5.08, 95%CI:2.81-9.20, Fisher's exact test P = 6.30E-11).

30 1.7% (59 of 3402) from May to November 2016 (Fisher exact test, P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 57; 95% CI

31 inge (6.4% [47 of 739] vs 0.5% [12 of 2627]; Fisher exact test, P < .001; OR, 15.1; 95% CI, 7.9-33.4)

32 experience and lower final BCVA (P = 0.604, Fisher exact test); however, development of ocular hyper

33 group; relative risk 1.25, 95% CI 0.43-3.66; Fisher's exact p=1.00).

34 ned significant (OR = 3.69, 95%CI:2.02-6.73, Fisher's exact test P = 1.06E-06).

35 imperfections and misalignments following a Fisher distribution function, in addition to the intrins

36 iability over time (ITDv) were combined in a Fisher information statistic to assess the amount of azi

37 tion and text parsing identification using a Fisher exact test.

38 ifferences in frequency were assessed with a Fisher exact test corrected for multiple comparisons.

39 dent t test for continuous variables, with a Fisher exact test to compare incidence of port removal a

40 In this paper, we develop an Adaptive Fisher's Combination (AFC) method for joint analysis of

41 istribution for any patient or in aggregate (Fisher's method: P = 0.99).

42 More precisely, although Fisher's model was able to explain several statistical p

43 Statistical analysis (Fisher's exact test) indicated there was no significant

44 Bacterial leakage was analyzed by chi(2) and Fisher exact tests (alpha = 5%).

45 Pearson chi(2) and Fisher exact tests were used for analysis.

46 e sessions were compared by using chi(2) and Fisher exact tests.

47 Pearson chi(2) and Fisher tests were used to assess the association between

48 ANOVA and Fisher's exact test were conducted to examine the differ

49 ociation analysis using Cochran-Armitage and Fisher's exact statistical tests identified 1364 statist

50 zed using ANOVA, Wilcoxon Rank Sum, chi, and Fisher Exact tests.

51 ameters, Pearson correlation coefficient and Fisher z transformation were used, which were corrected

52 Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) and Fisher syndrome (FS) are acute autoimmune neuropathies,

53 AH) was evaluated by using the Hunt-Hess and Fisher scales.

54 Odds ratios (ORs) and Fisher exact P values were calculated to assess risk fac

55 calculated by using logistic regression and Fisher test, respectively.

56 Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were used for analysis.

57 chi2 Statistics and Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate differences in

58 Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher exact tests were performed.

59 f features with outcomes by using t test and Fisher exact test.

60 re compared via Wilcoxon's rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test, as well as multivariate analysis.

61 skal-Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to compare the groups, with

62 ruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to look for statistically si

63 the Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test.

64 signed rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher exact tests.

65 with 2-sample t tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher exact tests.

66 We used t tests, chi(2) tests, and Fisher's exact tests to compare baseline demographics ac

67 Cross-tabulations, chi-squared tests, and Fisher's exact tests were used to assess the influences

68 ng Wilcoxon signed-rank, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher exact tests.

69 -test was used to compare average values and Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions.

70 ared by t tests for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables.

71 ences across tumor types (Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher tests), (c) pairwise tests between tumor types (M

72 form aneurysms (and 0/38 saccular aneurysms; Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001).

73 k versus classical meta-analysis approaches (Fisher's, Stouffer's and the additive method) as well as

74 nant explanations for this paradox(8,10) are Fisher's runaway process, which is based on genetic corr

75 rimental arm vs 92 (58%) in the control arm (Fisher exact test, P = .66).

76 idely used meta-analysis approaches, such as Fisher's method, Stouffer's method, minP and maxP, have

77 xpression pattern categories generated by AW-Fisher can become intractable.

78 Currently, AW-Fisher suffers from the lack of fast P-value computation

79 The adaptively weighted Fisher's method (AW-Fisher), initially developed for omics applications but

80 to construct a variability index for the AW-Fisher weight estimator and a co-membership matrix to ca

81 The software performs a tile-based Fisher ratio (F-ratio) analysis and facilitates a superv

82 d in 0.7% and 0.1%, respectively (P=0.002 by Fisher's exact test).

83 = 0.002 by the chi-square test; P = 0.006 by Fisher's exact test; and after adjustment for relatednes

84 ters combined (1.6% versus 4.7%, P = 0.02 by Fisher's exact test).

85 olecular subtype ( P = .383), as assessed by Fisher's exact test.

86 icance given of P = 0.0221 was determined by Fisher's test instead of P = 0.0032 determined by Tukey'

87 revalence of tumor response was evaluated by Fisher exact test, whereas differences in time to requir

88 ion of 'target', or 'non-target' followed by Fisher Exact Tests to assess enrichment of TFs and cofac

89 Two-way analyses of variance, followed by Fisher's protected least significant difference tests (a

90 Its most popular formulation, introduced by Fisher et al., uses n samples to predict the number U of

91 with the classical theory of pulled waves by Fisher and Skellam, suitably adapted to our experimental

92 r effect on the DNA methylome and calculated Fisher-exact p-values for a series of univariate tests.

93 n unguided expansion following the canonical Fisher-Kolmogorov dynamics(19,20) and is therefore a gen

94 tic independence assumption of the classical Fisher combination test and is computationally efficient

95 The GEE and the classical Fisher combination test, on the other hand, do not contr

96 d Simes procedure (TATES), and the classical Fisher combination test.

97 a novel statistical test employing conjugate Fisher transformations of correlation coefficients, MAGI

98 aureus colonizing AE cases versus controls (Fisher exact test, P = 0.03).

99 elevated baseline peripheral levels of CRP (Fisher's z=0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.05-0.14)

100 In a Perspective, Mack Su and David Fisher discuss the development of immunotherapies for tr

101 ocation) or the DNA-binding forkhead domain (Fisher exact test, P = 0.021).

102 tively, with a significant aggregate effect (Fisher's method: P < 0.001 for each).

103 tology and anatomy ontology terms, employing Fisher's Discriminant Analysis methods to identify previ

104 lent to ~45-year-old humans) male and female Fisher 344 rats to test the hypothesis that following eq

105 The evolutionary dynamics follow Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection and a

106 Several bootstrapping-based improvements for Fisher's Z test have been proposed.

107 ontext, and propose a framework derived from Fisher information that allows the quantification of inf

108 Furthermore, Fisher information provided explicit spatial information

109 n to zero of 18,055 autosomal and PAR genes (Fisher's exact P < 0.0001).

110 genetic distance (GD) <1.5% than in the GP (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.001).

111 d using hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), Fisher-ratio (F-ratio), interval partial least-squares (

112 superior effect of SHUTi versus HealthWatch (Fisher's exact test=0.52; p=0.32).

113 ients without TS, those with TS had a higher Fisher Hemorrhage Grade and a lower mean (+/-standard de

114 se positive, negative) using univariate (ie, Fisher exact) and multivariate machine learning approach

115 We tested this hypothesis in Fisher 344 rats, C57BL/6 J wild type and Nox2-/- mice, a

116 Statistical analyses included Fisher exact test, Pearson chi2 test, Mann-Whitney U tes

117 sing different statistical methods including Fisher's Exact Test, Student's t-test, ANOVA, non-parame

118 value-based meta-analysis methods, including Fisher's, Stouffer's, minP and maxP, is that they are se

119 lass of phenotypic fitness models (including Fisher's model) to 26 empirical landscapes representing

120 In this issue, Fisher and colleagues report the results of a nationally

121 4 versus group 1) and the response to IVIG (Fisher's exact P value 4.518x10(-)(03) and 8.224x10(-)(1

122 properties, but its quantification with Karl Fisher titration or thermal gravimetric analysis is prob

123 arty International Center; Sherrilyn and Ken Fisher Center for Environmental Infectious Diseases, Joh

124 nonlinear support vector machine and kernel Fisher discriminant analysis.

125 We validate the FSP-FIM against well-known Fisher information results for the simple case of consti

126 n procedure that yields an arbitrarily large Fisher information.

127 Male Fisher 344 rats were exposed by inhalation to Min-U-Sil

128 rain death was induced in 64 ventilated male Fisher rats by inflating a 4.0F Fogarty catheter in the

129 th diameters of about 4 nm, transmit maximum Fisher (fine-grained) information to protein complexes i

130 h women more likely to be affected than men (Fisher's exact test, P = .0197).

131 with the powers of TATES, Tippett's method, Fisher's combination test, MANOVA, MultiPhen, and SUMSCO

132 mbined with classical meta-analysis methods (Fisher's and the additive method), plus the three MetaPa

133 BS (18 demyelinating, 8 axonal, and 1 Miller Fisher syndrome), 5 had encephalitis (3 with concomitant

134 o facilitates differentiation between Miller-Fisher Syndrome (MFS) and BBE in cases of diagnostic dou

135 ge > 60 years and tumor thickness > 2.25 mm (Fisher exact test, P = .002 for both).

136 overlap with our prediction; and a modified Fisher Exact test was implemented to measure how well ou

137 levels were associated with higher modified Fisher scale (odds ratio 0.33 per 1 mg/dL increase; 95%

138 onotonic trend across categories of modified Fisher scale was found using analysis of variance and Sp

139 lexible and fast algorithm based on modified Fisher P-value integration.

140 We used both ordinal (modified Fisher scale) and dichotomized (thick vs thin subarachno

141 n of Neurosurgical Societies score, modified Fisher score, treatment modality, and cardiac comorbidit

142 Hess (HH) and radiological scores (modified Fisher Scale (mFS), Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Early Brain

143 ely on admission CT scans using the modified Fisher scale (grades: 0, no radiographic hemorrhage; 1,

144 ost somatic HPV16 APOBEC3-induced mutations (Fisher's exact test, P = 6.2 x 10(-14)), and have a 30%

145 ng and feature selection algorithms (namely, Fisher's discriminant ratio, Kruskal-Wallis' analysis, a

146 ed decondensation of pre-assembled networks (Fisher et al., 2017).

147 cted using ANOVA with a post hoc analysis of Fisher's LSD.

148 y and growth, a well-known characteristic of Fisher's equation.

149 tion, we develop new, compact expressions of Fisher information-derived measures that bound the robus

150 daptation of Brown's method (an extension of Fisher's method) for combining dependent P-values which

151 An innovative form of Fisher ratio (F-ratio) analysis (FRA) is developed for u

152 at sources in the flow and the influence of Fisher genetic waves.

153 Postselection can improve the rate of Fisher information (the average information learned abou

154 e present a non-parametric approach based on Fisher Information which obtains a low-dimensional embed

155 We developed a novel method based on Fisher's Discriminant Analysis (FDA) to identify gene ex

156 We developed a novel method based on Fisher's Discriminant Analysis to identify gene expressi

157 four categories of theoretical models, only Fisher's geometrical model (FGM) is consistent with our

158 the measurement scheme to attain the optimal Fisher information.

159 h location of metastases using the chi(2) or Fisher exact test.

160 by using hierarchic regressions or chi(2) or Fisher exact tests and with repeated-measures analysis o

161 ates were compared using Pearson's chi(2) or Fisher's exact test.

162 or skewed continuous data, and Chi-square or Fisher exact test was used for categorical data.

163 PO was compared with the chi(2) statistic or Fisher exact test, and multivariate analysis was perform

164 re analyzed using Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables, Mann-Whitne

165 ontinuous variables and Pearson chi2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables.

166 d -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate.

167 d -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.

168 le analyses (Student t test, chi(2) test, or Fisher exact test, as appropriate) and multivariable ana

169 were made using Pearson chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests for categorical factors, and t tests

170 e Empirical Brown's method (EBM) outperforms Fisher's method as well as alternative approaches for co

171 ns with P < 0.05 compared to other traits (P(Fisher) = 1.9x10(-14)).

172 ignificant aggregate effect across patients, Fisher's method: P < 0.001).

173 reat and as-treated approaches, we performed Fisher exact tests to compare subsequent pregnancy outco

174 ework bridges the gap between the phenotypic Fisher's Geometric Model and the genotypic properties, s

175 Two-way analysis of variance and posterior Fisher least significant difference test were used to ob

176 mental limit of T(2) time scaling of quantum Fisher information can be broken with time-dependent Ham

177 We obtain the optimal quantum Fisher information for parameters in time-dependent Hami

178 a pronounced sensing advantage: the quantum Fisher information per photon increases exponentially wi

179 Random, Fisher's ratio and Holdout samplers were more accurate a

180 Nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for sta

181 ociated with protection against reinfection (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.002).

182 the past 3 days on the numeric rating scale (Fisher exact test, P = 0.0026), Patient-Oriented Eczema

183 circulation; P = .07) and bleeding severity (Fisher grade <= 3 vs. 4; P = .33) did not impede detecti

184 and Neisseria lactamica (P < 0.002) (2-sided Fisher's exact test) was more likely in the smaller, mor

185 t week 4 (38% vs. 13%, P=0.04 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the A5340 trial; and 80% vs. 13%,

186 ial; and 80% vs. 13%, P<0.001 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the NIH trial) but the difference

187 se groups was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test P = .4241).

188 0.183), the change of which was significant (Fisher P value = 0.0065).

189 model's predictors were age, aneurysm size, Fisher grade, and World Federation of Neurological Surge

190 We used Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests for comparison of

191 Standardized Fisher transformations of the correlation/beta coefficie

192 Standardized Fisher transformations of the correlations between corti

193 ta were evaluated using standard statistics, Fisher exact tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

194 A 2-tailed Fisher exact test and paired Student t test were used fo

195 A 2-tailed Fisher exact test was used to assess for differences in

196 The 2-tailed Fisher exact test was used to compare outcomes between g

197 al rate-comparison methods, e.g. chi 2 test, Fisher's exact test and Binomial test.

198 d the independent samples t test, x(2) test, Fisher exact test, and Cohen k.

199 For statistical analysis, chi(2) test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon tes

200 and were compared using the chi-square test, Fisher exact test, analysis of variance, and Kaplan-Meie

201 lysis included use of the two-sample t test, Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation.

202 e investigated (ancova, Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher exact test).

203 e logistic regression, Welch t test, Z test, Fisher-exact test, Shapiro-Wilk test, and receiver opera

204 chi(2) tests, Fisher tests, and multivariable binary logistic regressi

205 The Fisher exact test (2-tailed) was used to compare proport

206 The Fisher exact test and exact logistic regression were use

207 The Fisher exact test and multivariable logistic regression

208 The Fisher exact test and Student t test analysis were perfo

209 The Fisher exact test was used for categoric variables.

210 The Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables.

211 The Fisher exact test was used to compare proportions; the S

212 The Fisher information matrix (FIM) estimates how well poten

213 The Fisher-alpha index displayed the higher values for the f

214 allis tests for continuous variables and the Fisher exact test for categorical variables.

215 (ANOVA), the Kruskal-Wallis H test, and the Fisher exact test.

216 ver operating characteristic curves, and the Fisher exact test.

217 symptomatic status by using t tests and the Fisher exact test.ResultsA total of 44 participants (mea

218 tions and associated quantities, such as the Fisher Information Matrix and Kullback-Leibler divergenc

219 sed P-value combination methods (such as the Fisher's combined test, the truncated product method, th

220 n phenotype prediction problems, such as the Fisher's ratio sampler, the Holdout sampler and the Rand

221 contingency table needed for calculating the Fisher's Exact Test.

222 by alleviating interference competition (the Fisher-Muller effect) or by separating them from deleter

223 Because the 1-tailed P value from the Fisher exact test was <.001, which crossed the superiori

224 However, the Fisher's Z-transformation test requires the normality as

225 ank sum test, a linear regression model, the Fisher exact test, and Pearson correlation.

226 ruct a differential correlation network, the Fisher's Z-transformation test is usually used.

227 del to estimate the null distribution of the Fisher combination test statistic.

228 by using the Freeman-Halton extension of the Fisher exact probability test.

229 SAH volume was dichotomised on the Fisher grade.

230 ntrol is generally necessary to optimize the Fisher information.

231 Bivariate (chi-square tests or the Fisher's exact test) and multivariate (logistic regressi

232 performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, the Fisher exact test, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

233 orical variables were evaluated by using the Fisher exact test and linear models with generalized est

234 gorical variables were measured by using the Fisher exact test, and the t test was used for continuou

235 Comparison of proportions was made using the Fisher exact test, using an alpha risk of 0.05 as clinic

236 cts and those with sporadic CCM by using the Fisher exact test.

237 Categorical data were compared using the Fisher exact test.

238 were compared across sequences by using the Fisher exact test.

239 erfusion patterns were analyzed by using the Fisher exact test.

240 tegoric variables were compared by using the Fisher exact test.

241 ortion of 22q11.2 deletions found, using the Fisher's exact test for the independent case-control stu

242 categorical variables were compared with the Fisher exact test.

243 Associations were tested with the Fisher exact test.

244 echanisms of Development of Allergy) (Thermo Fisher), and EUROLINE (EUROIMMUN).

245 y sensitive, both the Agena panel and Thermo Fisher NGS fusion panel reported minor fusions that were

246 limitations of ImmunoCAP IgE assays (Thermo Fisher Scientific/Phadia, Uppsala, Sweden) in the field

247 in prick test (n = 51) and ImmunoCAP (Thermo Fisher) (n = 62) results for extracts were available in

248 e PBP2' latex agglutination test kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with sensitivity and specificity of 9

249 em setup coupled to a Waters Q-TOF or Thermo Fisher Q Exactive mass analyzer, (ii) analysis of specim

250 rap mass spectrometer (LTQ-Velos Pro, Thermo Fisher) for resolving complex mixtures of natural aquati

251 ter (IRIS) (in this case a Delta Ray (Thermo Fisher Scientific)).

252 BMD (lyophilized panels; Sensititre; Thermo Fisher) and DD (30 mug; research-use-only [RUO] MASTDISC

253 itrap Elite hybrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, CA, USA) at resolving power settings

254 common direct electron detectors (the Thermo Fisher Scientific Falcon 3 (F3EC) and the Gatan K2), as

255 single-particle data collection with Thermo Fisher Scientific EPU software, using the two most commo

256 Analyses were performed through Fisher, Kruskal-Wallis, and ANOVA tests and a generalize

257 es were more likely to be treated with UDCA (Fisher's exact test p = 0.0178) than those with a lower

258 analysed using Chi-square test or Univariate Fisher's exact test.

259 We use Fisher information, an information theory-based method,

260 We used Fisher exact test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U tes

261 We used Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests to analyse cl

262 We used Fisher's exact test to compare unadjusted attack rates a

263 Here, we used Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection to eva

264 aphic method of estimating Ne /N, which uses Fisher's reproductive value to account for dynamic age-s

265 Using Fisher information and the Cramer-Rao lower bound, we an

266 Comparisons of regimens were assessed using Fisher exact test.

267 these association tests were assessed using Fisher's exact tests.

268 l characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regre

269 th pathologic findings and compared by using Fisher exact or t test, with a Bonferroni correction for

270 ed breast cancer risk were assessed by using Fisher exact, chi(2), and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

271 idate enrichment of plasma proteins by using Fisher meta-analysis, resampling-based statistical testi

272 th these mutations was investigated by using Fisher test.

273 Prevalence was compared using Fisher's exact test.

274 Haplotype frequencies were compared using Fisher's exact test.

275 nth posttransplant 6MWD were evaluated using Fisher exact test and Spearman correlation.

276 Data analyses was performed using Fisher Exact tests assuming a Bonferroni correction thre

277 dictive biomarkers of ascites and PHLF using Fisher exact, t test, or Wilcoxon rank sum test for univ

278 Analysis were done per protocol using Fisher exact test for complications and reoperations.

279 n both terrestrial and aquatic systems using Fisher information.

280 ps were combined to an overall P value using Fisher's method for combining P values.

281 ic regression, one-way analysis of variance, Fisher exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis H test.

282 sociated with the trait, were identified via Fisher's exact test, and then the ratio of the sSNPs to

283 sis revealed a significant burden for VPS16 (Fisher's exact test p value, 6.9 x 10(9) ).

284 etween relatives for quantitative traits was Fisher's infinitesimal model of a large number of geneti

285 The adaptively weighted Fisher's method (AW-Fisher), initially developed for omi

286 Categorical data were evaluated with Fisher's exact test.

287 d occluded vessels for each vessel type with Fisher exact test.

288 n was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0.2.

289 We also combined the resulting P values with Fisher's method to estimate the association between sodi

290 process, as well as for the (haploid) Wright Fisher model are presented.

291 del where the underlying process is a Wright-Fisher diffusion conditioned to survive until the time o

292 e not incorporated into the classical Wright-Fisher model, the standard reference model of population

293 ns of the Moran model and the haploid Wright-Fisher model) to examine fixation probabilities for a co

294 the underlying process is a two-locus Wright-Fisher diffusion with selection, which enables us to exp

295 ese issues, we developed a multilocus Wright-Fisher model of HIV dynamics with selection, mutation an

296 In the Wright-Fisher diffusion, the transition density function descri

297 ll become at least as relevant as the Wright-Fisher model (or similar models) and the Kingman coalesc

298 population evolving according to the Wright-Fisher model (or similar models).

299 are very different from those of the Wright-Fisher model.

300 te approximation of the discrete time Wright-Fisher model (DTWF).