Note that we compute separate (partial) core scores for each component.
There were significant decreases in CORE scores for the Subjective Well-Being, Problems/Symptoms, Life Functioning and Risk/Harm subscales (see Table 5).
To make the result more reliable, we use stringent threshold (1 for core score, 0.95 for PWM score) to determine the underlying TF binding site.
The median value for the cores scored for a given patient were then entered into the database.
Each annotating tool for regulatory features has some search parameters, such as score threshold in NNPP2.2, Eponine, and McPromoter, the core score and matrix score for the MATCH program, Z-score for over-represented oligonucleotides, and support and confidence scores for co-occurrence TFBSs analysis, in a gene group search.
If only one core score was available, for example owing to lack of appropriate cell types or core loss, this single score was used; a method that has been validated previously (Camp et al, 2000; Torhorst et al, 2001)).
The final score is prohibited from being negative, in order to avoid rewarding shorter models limited to only the confident structure core: The score for the two compared structures is calculated as the sum of scores for individual residue pairs, normalized by target chain length L: TR=(1/L) ∑ s i.
The distribution of IBHQ scores is described in Figure 2 for the core scores and in Figure 3 for the optional scores.
As showed in Table 2 the Generic Core scores were consistently higher for child reports than for parent reports.
Similarly to core scores, optional scores were lower for IBHQ-FU than for IBHQ-DC.
