Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biometrics. 2017 Oct 31;74(2):714–724. doi: 10.1111/biom.12790

Table 2.

Top panel: Posterior distribution summaries of the pulse parameters in Study 1 with comparisons between normal weight (NW) and obese (OB) women. Bottom panel: Posterior distribution summaries of the pulse parameters in Study 2 with comparisons between the joint and single hormone models. PM: Posterior median, 95% CI: 95% equal tailed credible interval, Δ : The difference in normal weight minus obese, PP: Posterior probability.

Study 1: Normal weight vs. obese women

Parameters Normal (n = 10) Obese (n = 12) Δ (NW-OB) NW>OB




PM 95%CI PM 95%CI PM 95%CI PP
LH Pulse # (6h) 6.4 (5.8, 7.0) 6.6 (6.1, 7.1) −0.2 (−1.0, 0.6) 0.23
LH Pulse mass(IU/L) 2.86 (0.64, 4.01) 1.22 (0.27, 1.71) 1.68 (−0.66, 3.56) 0.89
FSH Pulse # (6h) 6.2 (4.4, 8.0) 4.0 (2.9, 5.3) 2.6 (0.6, 4.7) 0.99
FSH Pulse mass(IU/L) 1.63 (1.14, 2.36) 1.64 (0.94, 3.53) −0.04 (−1.86, 1.06) 0.47
# of FSH per LH (ρ) 1.11 (0.78,1.53) 0.58 (0.37,0.86) 0.52 (0.085,1.00) 0.99
Spread (min; ν) 30.86 (18.54,71.20) 29.13 (16.10,66.74) 2.18 (−38.06, 41.08) 0.56

Study 2: A 24-hour natural history in normal weight women

Parameters Joint Single


PM 95%CI PM 95%CI

LH Pulse # (24 h) 17.9 (11.5,20.0) 17.0 (9.1,22.2)
LH Pulse mass(ng/ml) 2.6 (1.6,3.3) 2.9 (1.8,3.6)
FSH Pulse # (24 h) 11.9 (8.1,12.3) 9.8 (7.3,14.4)
FSH Pulse mass(ng/ml) 0.9 (0.7,1.1) 0.9 (0.2,1.5)
# of FSH per LH (ρ) 0.67 (0.47,0.92)
Spread (min; ν) 5.0 (1.9,8.2)