For a consistent approach between frameworks, we propose normalising the DegT50 values to 12°C because this temperature is established or suggested under the majority of frameworks (i.e. Biocides Regulation, REACH and medicinal products Directives).
Rauert et al. [42] proposed "…normalising DegT50 values to 12 °C because this temperature is established or suggested under the majority of frameworks (i.e. Biocides Regulation, REACH and medicinal products Directives)".
The full range of socio-ecological frameworks was therefore not included; however, we consider that we identified the majority of frameworks in which ES is a significant feature or improved ES management is a primary objective.
To date, the majority of frameworks adapting therapies to different cultures take a "top-down" theoretical approach, 1 proceeding from theoretical ideas of how best to culturally adapt programs.
While AluI was found to distinguish majority of Streptococcus framework species, MspI produced maximum numbers of cuts and thus proved informative for such analysis.
The majority of these frameworks build on the well-recognized ACCE (Analytic validity, Clinical validity, Clinical Utility, and Ethical, legal and social issues) framework [ 4- 7, 17, 18], while others utilize the four or five phases of translational medicine (T1-T5) research [ 8- 11].
As the vast majority of the frameworks used dealt with Java code, the open source programs used are in Java.
Still, the majority of these frameworks are somewhat problematic, because they focus on intervening in planning, policy-making and decision-making at a certain moment in time.
The majority of these frameworks are phased or tiered models that make a distinction between categories of evidence that address technical efficacy (analytic validity), diagnostic accuracy (clinical validity), and patient outcome efficacy (clinical utility) [ 19].
