Sentence examples for los score from inspiring English sources

The methods are used to predict delay, travel time, queuing, and other operational performance measures, which are often summarized in a level of service (LOS) score for a movement, approach, or overall intersection.

On the other hand G in mesophiles mutating to K in psychrophiles is avoided with LOS score of -12.4.

A numeric level of suspicion (LOS) score was calculated based on all these elements and taking into consideration the intensity and colour polarity of blush areas as well as the shape of dynamic curves, as follows: where P is the colour polarity (red, orange, blue), S is the dynamic curve shape, I is the maximum intensity and A is the area of interest in cm.

Correlations for total Loes score were -0.78 (p=0.003) for mental development, -0.74 (p=0.003) for gross motor function, and -0.80 (p<0.001) for fine motor function.

We performed three comparisons (Student's t test): each test versus total brain Loes score, fine motor and gross motor tests versus Loes score for the pyramidal tract, and fine motor and gross motor tests versus Loes score for the internal capsule.

For patients who underwent HSCT with GdE+ at baseline, with an NFS ≤1 and Loes score of 0.5 to ≤9 (n = 27), the 2-year MFD-free survival was 84%9595% CI, 62.3% to 93.6%).

Using the AR dataset as a control results in a LO score threshold of s=68.5.

We applied SiPhy to infer π and calculate the corresponding LO score at each site, and then integrated the LO scores over a 12mer window as described in the previous section.

We then applied SiPhy to infer π at each aligned column, and computed a LO score for each estimated.

The FDR at a given LO score threshold (s) is estimated to be the ratio between the number of the 12mers with LO scores ≥ s in a control dataset and the number in the entire ENCODE regions, normalized by the total sizes of the two datasets.

The ω LO score distributions for the 2D and 4D datasets are shown in Figure 2B; clearly the two distributions are much closer than the corresponding π LO score distributions, with medians of 28.9 and 25.6 for 2D and 4D sites, respectively.