For convenience, method V is set as the referenced method (for α=5 in Table 5).
Figures 3,4,5 show that the magnitude response of method V is better than those of methods I, II, and III, as a whole.
The advantages of method V is demonstrated in Section 2. The readers should note that Table 5 only provides five special cases of weighting matrix ({boldsymbol {hat {W}}}).
where T E) is the transmission coefficient calculated by solving Equation 8 using the transfer matrix method, V is the voltage drop values in the tunneling region, m* is the effective electron mass, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.
Algorithm 1 depicts this rationale, where kmax is the largest value of k tested, k∗ is the number of clusters estimated by the method, V is the value of the validity criterion after a single run of k-means, V∗ is the value of the validity criterion for the best partition found and p is the number of different partitions generated for each number k≤kmax of clusters.
Research questions were: (i) which methods of contacting and recruiting practices seem effective, (ii) how much does it cost to recruit practices, (iii) what methods of patient recruitment are practices willing to use, (iv) how many patients are recruited via different methods, (v) what is the cost per patient recruited?
Parameter estimates for CL were highly similar between all missing data methods; however, V was considerably different between estimates using the mixture methods and EXTRA methods (Table IV).
In the Cavalieri method, the volume V is directly estimated from equidistant and parallel MR images of the brain with a uniform random starting position.
Moreover, this labeling method for annexin V is nonspecific, as the reaction is between the prosthetic group ([F]SFB) and any available NH2 groups in this protein.
In this method, the guided vector field v is first created using both the images g and f*.
Hence, the computational complexity of methods IV and V are almost identical but higher than for methods I, II, and III.
