Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Amy Mundorff

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
The probabilities indicate the likelihood of each observation being assigned to each group. The majority of the observations have a strong prob- ibility of membership in the cluster to which they have been placed. TABLE 4—Probabilities of group (cluster) membership for three species, Trial 1.

Table 4 The probabilities indicate the likelihood of each observation being assigned to each group. The majority of the observations have a strong prob- ibility of membership in the cluster to which they have been placed. TABLE 4—Probabilities of group (cluster) membership for three species, Trial 1.

Related Figures (21)

TABLE 1|1—Weight in pounds (and kilograms) and sex data for human sub- jects and weight data for pig and rabbit subjects in all three trials.
TABLE 1|1—Weight in pounds (and kilograms) and sex data for human sub- jects and weight data for pig and rabbit subjects in all three trials.
TABLE 2—Seasonal information, temperatures and study duration of the three trials. temperatures too cold for insect activity yet warmed by the end of the trial 75 days later. Trial 2 began and ended quickly during peak insect activity, taking only 16 days to reach 84 ADD, although data continued to be collected for 45 days. Trial 3 began in the winter and took over 120 days to achieve 84 ADD.
TABLE 2—Seasonal information, temperatures and study duration of the three trials. temperatures too cold for insect activity yet warmed by the end of the trial 75 days later. Trial 2 began and ended quickly during peak insect activity, taking only 16 days to reach 84 ADD, although data continued to be collected for 45 days. Trial 3 began in the winter and took over 120 days to achieve 84 ADD.
FIG. 1—Decomposition trends for pig, rabbit, and human subjects in Trial 1 (A), Trial 2 (B), Trial 3 (C), and all trials combined (D). The y-axis represent. the averaged residual ADD for each species, thus any positive residual indicates and overestimation of ADD, on average, and vice versa for negativ residuals.
FIG. 1—Decomposition trends for pig, rabbit, and human subjects in Trial 1 (A), Trial 2 (B), Trial 3 (C), and all trials combined (D). The y-axis represent. the averaged residual ADD for each species, thus any positive residual indicates and overestimation of ADD, on average, and vice versa for negativ residuals.
FIG. 2—Decomposition trends for pig, rabbit, and human subjects in Trial 1 (A), Trial 2 (B), Trial 3 (C), and all trials combined (D). ADD is depicted on the x-axis, and average TBS is on the y-axis.
FIG. 2—Decomposition trends for pig, rabbit, and human subjects in Trial 1 (A), Trial 2 (B), Trial 3 (C), and all trials combined (D). ADD is depicted on the x-axis, and average TBS is on the y-axis.
FIG. 3—Effects plot of the interaction of season and species on estimated ADD.
FIG. 3—Effects plot of the interaction of season and species on estimated ADD.
Best fit model is in bold. The average silhouette indicates that most of the observations cluster close to the group mean, and the two partition coeffi- cients demonstrate that there is not a high degree of overlap between the groups. TABLE 3—Model fit statistics for three species comparison (pig, rabbit and human) for Trial 1.
Best fit model is in bold. The average silhouette indicates that most of the observations cluster close to the group mean, and the two partition coeffi- cients demonstrate that there is not a high degree of overlap between the groups. TABLE 3—Model fit statistics for three species comparison (pig, rabbit and human) for Trial 1.
Best fit model in bold. The lower average silhouette in the best fit model demonstrates that fewer of the observations were close to the group mean. However, there was still clear separation between the clusters. TABLE 5—Model fit statistics, pigs and humans only, Trial 1.
Best fit model in bold. The lower average silhouette in the best fit model demonstrates that fewer of the observations were close to the group mean. However, there was still clear separation between the clusters. TABLE 5—Model fit statistics, pigs and humans only, Trial 1.
Trials 1 and 3 produced solutions that had observations clustered close to the group means and had clear distinctions between each cluster. Trial 2 pro- duced a solution that had fewer observations close to the mean and had a greater degree of potential overlap between the clusters, indicating more sim- ilarity in decomposition patterns during the summer months. TABLE 7—Summary of model fit statistics for three species comparisons, all trials.
Trials 1 and 3 produced solutions that had observations clustered close to the group means and had clear distinctions between each cluster. Trial 2 pro- duced a solution that had fewer observations close to the mean and had a greater degree of potential overlap between the clusters, indicating more sim- ilarity in decomposition patterns during the summer months. TABLE 7—Summary of model fit statistics for three species comparisons, all trials.
Analyzing the pigs and humans without the rabbits resulted in a five-clus- ter solution, without a high degree of overlap between groups. The probabil- ity that each observation belongs in a specific cluster is presented in the table TABLE 6—Probabilities of group (cluster) membership for pigs and human: only, Trial 1.
Analyzing the pigs and humans without the rabbits resulted in a five-clus- ter solution, without a high degree of overlap between groups. The probabil- ity that each observation belongs in a specific cluster is presented in the table TABLE 6—Probabilities of group (cluster) membership for pigs and human: only, Trial 1.
TABLE 8—Average probabilities of group membership for three specie. comparisons, all trials. Trials 1 and 3 consistently had high likelihoods of the observations being consistently classified into their assigned group. Trial 2 showed more poten- tial for observations to be classified into more than one cluster. Trial 2 had rapid decomposition across all species, leading to more similar TBS values in all species, and therefore less distance between clusters.
TABLE 8—Average probabilities of group membership for three specie. comparisons, all trials. Trials 1 and 3 consistently had high likelihoods of the observations being consistently classified into their assigned group. Trial 2 showed more poten- tial for observations to be classified into more than one cluster. Trial 2 had rapid decomposition across all species, leading to more similar TBS values in all species, and therefore less distance between clusters.
ABLE 10—Average probabilities of group membership for pigs and humans only, all trials. This again demonstrates the likelihood that the observations would be consistently classified into the cluster to which they were assigned.
ABLE 10—Average probabilities of group membership for pigs and humans only, all trials. This again demonstrates the likelihood that the observations would be consistently classified into the cluster to which they were assigned.
In all three trials, fewer observations were grouped close to the mean, but there was a clear separation between clusters. TABLE 9—Model fit statistics for pigs and humans only, all trials.
In all three trials, fewer observations were grouped close to the mean, but there was a clear separation between clusters. TABLE 9—Model fit statistics for pigs and humans only, all trials.
When two groups are specified all the humans and pigs classify together and all of the rabbits are grouped separately. This table corresponds to the fuzzy clustering analysis described in Tables 7 and 8. Again, all observations were correctly classified. TABLE 12—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for all spe- cies in Trial 2.
When two groups are specified all the humans and pigs classify together and all of the rabbits are grouped separately. This table corresponds to the fuzzy clustering analysis described in Tables 7 and 8. Again, all observations were correctly classified. TABLE 12—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for all spe- cies in Trial 2.
TABLE 13—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for all spe- cies for Trial 3. When two groups are specified, all of the pigs and humans fall into one group and the rabbits are classified into a separate group. All observations were correctly classified.
TABLE 13—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for all spe- cies for Trial 3. When two groups are specified, all of the pigs and humans fall into one group and the rabbits are classified into a separate group. All observations were correctly classified.
TABLE 11—Discriminant analysis results for all species in Trial 1 showing when two groups are specified (as determined by the fuzzy clustering analy- sis) then all the pigs and humans classify into one group while the rabbits are grouped separately. This table corresponds to the cluster analysis described in Tables 3 and 4 This shows that all of the observations were correctly classified.
TABLE 11—Discriminant analysis results for all species in Trial 1 showing when two groups are specified (as determined by the fuzzy clustering analy- sis) then all the pigs and humans classify into one group while the rabbits are grouped separately. This table corresponds to the cluster analysis described in Tables 3 and 4 This shows that all of the observations were correctly classified.
TABLE 15—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for pigs and humans from Trial 2; when two groups are specified for the pigs and humans, all humans and four of the pigs are correctly classified. One pig is misclassified as a human.
TABLE 15—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for pigs and humans from Trial 2; when two groups are specified for the pigs and humans, all humans and four of the pigs are correctly classified. One pig is misclassified as a human.
Four of the five humans correctly classified into human groups, while one human was misclassified as a pig. All five pigs were correctly classified as pigs. TABLE 16—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for pig: and humans in Trial 3.
Four of the five humans correctly classified into human groups, while one human was misclassified as a pig. All five pigs were correctly classified as pigs. TABLE 16—Discriminant analysis validation of fuzzy clustering for pig: and humans in Trial 3.
TABLE 14—Discriminant analysis validation results for pigs and humans from Trial I showing nine individuals correctly classified by species, and one pig misclassified as a human. This table corresponds to the fuzzy clustering analysis in Tables 5 and 6.
TABLE 14—Discriminant analysis validation results for pigs and humans from Trial I showing nine individuals correctly classified by species, and one pig misclassified as a human. This table corresponds to the fuzzy clustering analysis in Tables 5 and 6.
FIG. 4—Scatter plot of Total Body Score across actual ADD for pigs, rabbits, and humans during Trial I (A), Trial 2 (B), and Trial 3 (C) showing clusterin; of the three species.
FIG. 4—Scatter plot of Total Body Score across actual ADD for pigs, rabbits, and humans during Trial I (A), Trial 2 (B), and Trial 3 (C) showing clusterin; of the three species.
FIG. 5—Decomposition of Rabbit 4 in Trial 2 on Day 4 (left) where maggots have exposed bone on the hind limbs but 24 h earlier no observable egg or maggot masses were visible through the fur (left).
FIG. 5—Decomposition of Rabbit 4 in Trial 2 on Day 4 (left) where maggots have exposed bone on the hind limbs but 24 h earlier no observable egg or maggot masses were visible through the fur (left).
FIG. 6—Decomposition of Human 2 and Pig 5 on Day 4 of Trial 2 where skin color changes are visible and maggot activity has not led to bone exposure.
FIG. 6—Decomposition of Human 2 and Pig 5 on Day 4 of Trial 2 where skin color changes are visible and maggot activity has not led to bone exposure.
Related topics:
BiologyMedicine
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved