Alternatively, the positive slopes observed between the percentage of 'local' genes and survival ('local versus foreign' criterion) could be explained by parental effects or other genetic differences among populations, such as fixed beneficial mutations (see Kawecki and Ebert 2004).
The absence of the other clinical criteria suggested by WHO could be explained by the small number of patients with serious bacterial illness in our study [ 29].
The missing evidence of nosocomial respiratory tract infections as defined by the CDC criteria during the study period could be explained by the absence of an intensive-care unit with invasive ventilation procedures [ 22, 23] and the restricted availability of the X-ray machine.
Only 33.6% of the variation of daily costs (mean ± SD, €704 ± 422) in a monocentre analysis could be explained by criteria such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, gender, age, mechanical ventilation, emergency admission and others [ 21].
When the findings are compared to the study in Uganda [ 11] in which proven sepsis was 37% among 293 neonates, the difference could be explained by stringent criteria used in the present study.
This was negated by our study which could be explained by the criterion method as being different and a significant difference in ethnicity.
Higher than expected mortality could be explained by the exclusion criteria for the FACTT population in particular chronic lung disease.
This could be explained by the inclusion criteria of the study, comprising only subjects with IGT.
Reads fulfilling the matching criteria were tested to determine whether existing mismatches could be explained by PCR crossover.
Reads fulfilling the matching criteria were tested to determine whether existing mismatches could be explained by PCR crossover, i.e. artificial recombinations of the two alleles during PCR.
Aside from the age difference of subjects, the differing results could be explained by the different criteria used to define the presence of a startle reflex.
