Sentence examples for 1 lm from inspiring English sources
The impulse response of SFB sub-carrier m for each of these real modulation symbols is: g l, m [ n ] = θ l, m ( - 1 ) lm g n - l M 2 e j 2 π M m n - L g - 1 2, (10).
Equating the result of the derivative to zero and after simple mathematical operations, the estimators under ℋ 1 can be written as: Σ ̂ T = 1 LM ∑ m = 1 M X H m Σ ̂ A - 1 X m, (25) Σ ̂ A = 1 NM ∑ m = 1 M X m Σ ̂ T - 1 X H m. (26).
Fourteen participants were interviewed individually: 10 obstetricians, 2 CNMs, 1 LM, and 1 hospital administrator.
Let h ~ 1 lm … h ~ K ~ lm lm be the K ~ lm haplotypes that explains all the xor-genotypes x i lm, i = 1, …, N in the block that starts at locus l and ends at locus m, i.e., 1 ≤ l ≤ m ≤ L, and let f ~ lm = f ~ 1 lm, …, f ~ K ~ lm lm be the haplotype frequency vector for this block.
Each f ~ k lm, k = 1, … K ~ lm is represented by the density of the nonzero values of the indicator vectors { v 1 lm, …, v N lm } for the given block x i lm, i.e., f ~ lm ≜ 1 2 N ∑ n = 1 N v n lm.
In an iterative design and test process to improve thruster performance, four thrusters of three designs were fabricated: the first laboratory model mark 1 (LM-1-MK-1), the first laboratory model mark 2 (LM-1-MK-2), the second laboratory model (LM-2), and the first breadboard model (BBM-1).
Algorithm 1 LM-based algorithm for joint estimation of propagation parameters and mobile position.
■ Experiment has 3 cohorts: ○ Cohort 1: LM-4175 cells alone.
The copy number profiles of a cell line derived from Tumor 1 (LM-MEL-62), ten single cell clones derived from LM-MEL-62, and a fresh frozen tumor fragment of Tumor 1 were assessed using Illumina SNP microarrays.
LM-PCR analysis was performed as described by Gilmour and Fan (2009) using HPLC-PAGE purified linker primers oDS 35 and oDS 36, as well as oDS 37, oDS 38, and oDS 39 to amplify and label HPLC-PAGE purifiedducts.
Using only data from double bleed time points (i.e. weeks 9 60), the prevalence of P. falciparum was found to increase significantly (Χ2 = 35.3, df = 2, p<0.001) from children <18 mth (LDR-FMA: 27.3%, LM: 12.3%) to children 18 23 mth (LDR-FMA 38.1%, LM: 19.3%) and children 24 29 mth (LDR-FMA 54.3%, LM 32.2%), with no further significant increase in older children (p = 0.24).
