In some cases, differences in the motifs obtained from related C2H2 TFs can be rationalized: Figure 5 (right) shows the example of paralogs EGRH-1 and EGRH-3, in which the motifs obtained by PBM closely reflect those predicted by the recognition code, which differ at several positions.
Apart from these extreme cases, differences across EU countries, and notably countries of Continental Europe, may not be very large, as suggested by Evers et al. (2008).
These analyses show that, in some cases, differences in tuning between STRFs derived from responses to song and ml noise stimuli can be explained in terms of biases introduced by the estimation algorithm, rather than actual tuning nonlinearities [2].
DRGs are also used to measure hospital performance, by removing the impact of case mix differences from observable outputs [5].
In this case the differences from the real data, for both municipalities, are quite significant.
This also means that real case-control differences from robust studies are less likely to be confounded by cryptic population stratification than similar SNP studies, although we would recommend that population stratification is controlled for as far as possible.
Although the labeling indices for cathepsins B (CB-LI), H (CH-LI), and D (CD-LI) for the cancer cases showed significant differences from those of controls, cathepsin L (CL-LI) of cancer cases showed no difference from that of controls (P <.05).
FFB resorption showed, however, high variability, with wide differences from case to case, ranging from complete resorption to almost no change in graft volume.
Differences across the two groups were thus more likely to be developmental, which connote expert versus student heuristics, rather than case-specific differences derived from multiple clinical cases.
The selection of control complied with 3 rules: 1) same sex with case; 2) age difference from case less than 5 years; 3) primary or re-treatment patient as case.
