Based on findings of previous studies, there was speculation that two well-known experimental design software packages, JMP and Design Expert, produced varying power outputs given the same design and user inputs. For context and scope, another popular experimental design software package, Minitab® Statistical Software version 17, was added to the comparison. The study compared multiple test cases run on the three software packages with a focus on 2k and 3K factorial design and adjusting the standard deviation effect size, number of categorical factors, levels, number of factors, and replicates. All six cases were run on all three programs and were attempted to be run at one, two, and three replicates each. There was an issue at the one replicate stage, however—Minitab does not allow for only one replicate full factorial designs and Design Expert will not provide power outputs for only one replicate unless there are three or more factors. From the analysis of these results, it was concluded that the differences between JMP 13 and Design Expert 10 were well within the margin of error and likely caused by rounding. The differences between JMP 13, Design Expert 10, and Minitab 17 on the other hand indicated a fundamental difference in the way Minitab addressed power calculation compared to the latest versions of JMP and Design Expert. This was found to be likely a cause of Minitab’s dummy variable coding as its default instead of the orthogonal coding default of the other two. Although dummy variable and orthogonal coding for factorial designs do not show a difference in results, the methods affect the overall power calculations. All three programs can be adjusted to use either method of coding, but the exact instructions for how are difficult to find and thus a follow-up guide on changing the coding for factorial variables would improve this issue.

Breast cancer affects about 12% of women in the US. Arguably, it is one of the most advertised cancers. Mammography became a popular tool of breast cancer screening in the 1970s, and patient-geared guidelines came from the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the US Preventative Task Force (USPSTF). This research focuses on ACS guidelines, as they were the earliest as well as the most changed guidelines. Mammography guidelines changed over time due to multiple factors. This research has tracked possible causes of those changes. Research began with an extensive literature search of clinical trials, the New York Times and the Washington Post archives, systematic reviews, ACS and USPSTF archives.

By questioning methods of sex selection since their early development, and often discovering that they are unreliable, scientists have increased the creative and technological capacity of the field of reproductive health. The presentation of these methods to the public, via published books on timing methods and company websites for sperm sorting, increased interest in, and influence of, sex selection within the global society. The purpose of explaining the history, interest, development, and impact of various sex selection methods in the mid-twentieth century based on the information that is available on them today is to show couples which methods have failed and provide them with the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision on how they choose to go about utilizing methods of sex selection.

By demonstrating the struggle for sound standard of care for non-medical reproductive health care providers during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, this project emphasizes what the standards of reproductive health care for abortion and contraception might be like if the organizations that made them so readily available, like Planned Parenthood, were defunded or criminalized in our modern setting.