Sentence examples for methods was larger from inspiring English sources

As with the previous dataset, the classical approach based on multiple sequence alignment performed best; this time the difference between alignment-based and alignment-free methods was larger.

The difference in performance of the two methods was larger for lower levels of LD and for a smaller number of loci that could be inferred in the first step of the Two_Step method (i.e., the number of unambiguous cases).

The ratio between β and δ obtained with the GT-ST reconciliation methods was larger than 1 in the OBP, OR, and GR families, suggesting a putative family expansion in Drosophila (fig. 5 and supplementary table S5, Supplementary Material online).

The bias when using the simple methods was larger for the differing directions dropout mechanism, compared with the same direction, when data were missing at random and for all analyses, including the mixed model, for missing not at random data.

In contrast, the range of the differences for third-generation cephalosporins and erythromycin detected by the two surveillance methods was larger than the range of differences for penicillin as measured for each ABCs site.

Because 5 of the 11 samples were outside the interval outlined by the lines, the difference between the two methods was larger than could be explained by imprecision only.

The standard deviation for both methods was large which confirmed that the matches of the other songs in the database were very small compared to the actual match.

The difference between DSCs obtained by the different GCM methods was largest for necrotic uptakes and smallest for the Gaussian uptake.

Figure 2 illustrates a case where the difference between methods was large, Δ Cout = 4.1 μl/(s kPa), is shown.

The difference between methods was largest at low-frequency SNPs, but there was a substantial gap across the entire frequency spectrum.

The difference in detection rates of CIN or invasive cervical cancer between the two screening methods was largest at three years after randomisation to screening.