This, however, is likely to be explained by differences in study population and histological reference standard, where we use a lower threshold for significant tumour and smaller tumours within our patient cohort.
Differences in reference instruments would not likely explain the greater measurement error reported by Tanner, given that their instrument undergoes a three-point and two-point calibrations check every few hours, similar to our reference instrument.
This can be explained by the difference in reference sequence space used in mapping.
This discrepancy most likely can be explained by differences in study populations, follow-up time, and reference groups (sulfonylurea monotherapy in UKPDS and insulin monotherapy in our analysis, respectively).
These differences may be explained by differences in study populations (case mix) [ 39, 40], reference standards and language versions of the HADS.
Direct comparison of suboptimal ART adherence prevalence from various studies is hindered by differences in study design and adherence measures, including time reference periods.
Reduced marker polymorphisms, as measured by differences in PIC values between groups of accessions, were detected in the reference set in comparison with composite collection.
The optical property results can be affected by differences in surface profile and in height between the sample and the reference [ 11].
However, the established reference values vary considerably, which can be partly explained by differences in the methodology used to estimate fluid intake and/or losses [ 5].
Normalizing from this reference allows a more accurate quantification of neuronal activation, which is less biased by differences in staining.
