It is not clear whether this difference contributed to the different results between the 2 countries.
Third, strain differences may have contributed to the different findings (Sprague Dawley vs. Wistar rats).
Another difference that might have contributed to the different outcome in the two models is that the tumorigenic capacity of human keratinocytes expressing IκBαSR and oncogenic Ras was assessed by transplantation into immunodeficient mice, while in our experiments, the mice were immune competent.
Although we must consider that the differences in methods used in these studies contributed to the different values, skinfold thickness is widely measured in population studies and in public health clinics.
Indeed, differences in these factors might have contributed to the different results reported by Gilliver et al [4], who found acquired resistance traits in faecal bacteria from the same wild rodent species, but living in woodland sites in England.
However, there are several methodological differences between the studies that might have contributed to the different results (e.g., spatial extent of the magnetic field induced by the coil, direction of eye movements, and restriction of movement).
A number of differences exist among the platforms studied that may have contributed to the different results.
It is also possible that differences in media between the two preparations may have contributed to the different patterns of respiratory suppression; notably, the presence of ATP in the medium used for permeabilized tissue may have inhibited mitochondrial function.
Differences in study population and definition of complications may have contributed to the different utility scores between the two studies.
The 3 dB difference of the averaged incident fields was unlikely to have contributed to the different outcome of GSM and UMTS exposure on well-being.
What factors could have contributed to the different responses to these blackouts?
