Sentence examples for levels of conclusions from inspiring English sources

Although we did not include the following as explicitly in our manuscript, we would like to point out that what might seem as minor technical differences between our and the Anisimov et al. (2015) study, can have severe implications for the study species and thus on the levels of conclusions that can be drawn (please also see the response to the first concern raised by Reviewer 1).

Data integration can be done at the level of conclusions about responsive genes and phenotypes, and this workflow is supported by CEBS.

Even the selection of 47 representative species (given thousands available genomes) is not clearly justified, and, to make things worse, may introduce some biases at the level of conclusions.

We are only interested in changes at the level of conclusions made for management application, i.e. whether there are hypothetical scenarios which could falsify the management decision just derived from the model results.

To our knowledge, CERHR was the only resource of its kind, producing evaluations that considered toxicity findings in the context of current human exposures to derive "level-of-concern" conclusions.

Hazard identification conclusions are reached by integrating the highest level-of-evidence conclusion for a health effect(s) from the human and the animal evidence streams.

If the human level-of-evidence conclusion of no health effect is supported by animal evidence of no health effect, the hazard identification conclusion is "not identified".

When the data provide evidence of no health effect, the level-of-evidence conclusion for human data from step 6 is considered together with the level-of-evidence for health effects conclusion for nonhuman animal data.

When the data support a health effect, the level-of-evidence conclusion for human data from step 6 ("high," "moderate," or "low") is considered together with the level of evidence for nonhuman animal data to reach one of four hazard identification conclusions.

There is thus some convergence at the level of practical conclusions between their understanding of the immunity of civilians or common citizens and the "moral disaster" position outlined above (2.3.2).

If the process had been done independently for each vessel, the significance level of the conclusions would have been inflated.