Exact(1)
In addition, to confirm the results were not biased due to difference in sample sizes (one hundred (8.5 min) datasets in human vs. five to twenty-five (30 min) datasets in NHPs), the same functional connectivity analysis using TC-ICA was applied for a subset of human subjects (N = 18, 18 (8.5 min) data were chose to resemble 5 (30 min) worth of data in NHPs).
Similar(59)
Real street data were chosen to evaluate the energy consumption.
The data from Well#A (1046 core and log data) were chosen to provide the training patterns.
Birth data were chosen to reflect the most etiologically relevant time period for brain development [ 27].
Conserved sequence stretches from this data set and from subsequently generated additional data were chosen to design gene-specific generic RT-PCR primers (Additional file 2).
A total of 14 genes with relevant expression profiles from the Oligo array data were chosen to be validated by RNA gel blot analysis.
Previously described [ 36] RNAseq data were chosen to match the genetic background and approximate age of mice used in our experiments.
The 1 day CS treatment data were chosen to test the Cellular Stress Network model; these data represent the stress response in non-diseased, naïve tissue that the network model was designed to evaluate.
Ten genes whose expressions showed no difference in comparative transcriptome data between control and drought-stress conditions (unpublished data) were chosen to determine the best reference genes (Additional file 1: Table S11).
These data were chosen to reflect a stable level of alcohol consumption/ preference" and to facilitate comparisons with alcohol consumption/preference in rats selectively bred for this trait [ 7], which use a similar paradigm for selection.
Twelve promoters each from the Top 1%, Top 5%, and Top 10% categories of the HaloCHIP-chip data were chosen to determine the positive predictive value and 36 promoters were chosen from the Bottom 50% of the list for determination of the negative predictive value.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com