An effective technique to perform instantaneous blind source separation by considering a reformulation of the referenced contrast (RC) [A.
A reference segmentation was established by considering a topic change associated with each report, the start and end boundaries being, respectively, placed at the beginning of the report's introduction and at the end of the report's closing remarks.
The algorithm is derived by considering an extended dynamic system where the reference parameters and the transmitted symbols are system-state random processes.
The theory was elaborated and refined by considering how reference may be broadened by tense and modal factors (for example, the term horse in "Every horse will die," which may refer to future as well as present horses) or narrowed by adjectives or other factors (for example, horse in "Every horse in the race is less than two years old").
The analysis and prediction of the regional wind climate was calculated by considering 5 reference roughness lengths (0.000, 0.020, 0.100, 0.400, 1.000 m) and 5 reference heights (20, 40, 45, 70, 90 m) above ground level.
The robustness of the approximate conditional analysis should also be evaluated by considering multiple reference studies to assess the impact of differences in LD structure between populations on inference.
The reference value for infants who receive complementary foods from 5 (or 7) months to 12 months was derived by considering the reference value for energy of 700 kcal for this age group and accounting for the nutrient density of breast milk (12 μg folate/100 kcal breast milk).
Abundance estimation at the species level was performed applying the Genome Abundance Similarity Correction (GASiC) proposed by Lindner and Renard to estimate true genome abundances via read alignment by considering reference genome similarities in a non-negative LASSO approach [ 33].
By considering DAT as a reference test, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ELISA was calculated as 60.55%, 79.83%, and 73.74% and 68.38%, respectively.
Using our coalescent framework, we address this question by considering two potential reference panels for imputation in the same target population.
