Sentence examples for methods were roughly from inspiring English sources

In nucleotide MSAs, it became apparent that Entropy also rendered the longest divergent regions, while all the methods were roughly equivalent for regions below 11 nucleotides.

Overall, FC estimates obtained by both methods were roughly concordant and all genes were significantly overexpressed by qPCR in at least one of the tissues tested (see Table 1).

The calculation methods are roughly categorized into two types: calculations on electrically neutral surfaces and electrified surfaces.

These methods are roughly categorized under four headings: models inspired by the concept of a CPG (Central Pattern Generator), methods based on the principles of control engineering, predictive gait simulation using optimisation, and models inspired by passive walking theory.

From the comparison results, it is clear that the performance of the two kinds of methods are roughly similar, but there are some difference in details.

Such methods are roughly divided into two classes: the former is based on an approximate solution of the wave equation on a finite grid, while the latter is based on the geometric modeling of acoustic propagation.

With a low substitution rate, the mean branch score accuracy of all methods was roughly the same (except for MSN, which once again was significantly higher).

We estimate maximum likelihood (ML) expression levels using an Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm and show that previous rescue methods are roughly equivalent to one iteration of EM.

With over 200 cells measured by metaphase karyotype and 459 cells measured by the PS microarray method, we found that the per-cell accuracies of the methods are roughly in line.

The hill climbing and simulated annealing methods are roughly equally efficient, with the hill climbing being slightly faster, while the simulated annealing being able to reach slightly higher fitness values, in experiments with large number of expressed multi-membership genes and thus larger search space.

The new multilevel method is roughly six times faster than Newton-GMRES and 40 times faster than Picard.