Each individual age, depositional environment and post-deposition history of the various samples are evaluated, in order to explain the methodological reasons for discordances and concordances.
Some potential reasons for discordance could be methodological, to include systematic errors due to using a wrong model of sequence evolution, coupled with long branches, or mixtures of branch lengths within COSII, or undetected paralogy or alignment bias.
Discordance, however, can arise through true biological phenomena or through methodological issues; the burden of proof for establishing discordance is more substantial.
Drawing conclusions on actual adherence rates in breast cancer patients is limited by considerable discordance in results due to methodological inconsistency across studies and by the various measurement methods employed.
Discordance may be associated with: a) methodological factors, b) intratumoral heterogeneity and c) clonal selection associated with adjuvant therapy.
In some instances, discordance among marker classes may result from methodological biases, which when appropriately corrected allow obtaining reconciled patterns [ 21, 60].
The discordance between these data appears to be a methodological issue.
The discordance between CPG knowledge, attitude and behavior demands further methodological investigation.
Studies employing IHC have generally found higher discordance rates than those employing in situ hybridization, suggesting methodological issues may play a role in apparent discordance.
Of the discordant assays: 1 assay exhibited a single discordance; 2 assays exhibited two discordances and 2 assays exhibited four discordances.
