The phrase "conclusions we made" is grammatically correct and can be used in written English.
It is typically used when discussing the outcomes or results of something that was analyzed or studied. Example: "After conducting several experiments, we were able to come to the conclusions that we made based on the data collected."
Conclusions: We made the model for US-guided procedures by simple and easy methods.
One of the conclusions we made in our report was that the risk of genetically modified organisms in biotechnology was low as it pertained to the medical field, since proper controls had been built and mandated to protect public health and safety from any rogue bugs that might be created in the lab.
While more coefficients were statistically significant in results from analysing the 4,820 cases, these results do not conflict with conclusions we made with regard to comparison between rural and non-rural areas according to our results from analysing the 1,575 cases.
However, try as we might, we cannot divorce ourselves from our own personal interests and perceptions that shape the questions we ask, the theoretical filters and methods we choose, and the conclusions we make.
In Section "Performance evaluation", we present detailed experimental results conducted on the HSE 2 emulator, and in Section "Conclusions", we make some concluding remarks.
Perhaps what is confusing is that in justifying these conclusions we make use of predictions across the whole embryo, rather than just on the training data.
Clearly, if our aim is to attach biological meaning to our results (for example, by proposing putative pathways), then we need to have some degree of confidence that any conclusions we make are robust to the uncertainty in the data.
We strongly believe that for the conclusions we make in this paper, the ChIP-qPCR of representative genes is sufficient and that performing ChIP-seq is unnecessary and would add little to this paper but at great cost.
The Au and Jan paper is a very valuable contribution to the field and we have revised both the Results and Methods to better discuss the different conclusions we make and the basis for this difference.
Based on our conclusions, we make three recommendations: firstly, the design, implementation and management of service integration should engage with and account for local variability and the active influence of nurses and patients, through closer, more dynamic approaches to management.
Accordingly, Rockman argues that if the loci that we are able to find are a biased sample of the universe of QTNs, any conclusions we make about the evolutionary and genetic phenomena based on them are also likely to be biased.
