Sentence examples for more stringent cut from inspiring English sources

When we used a more stringent cut point of P<0.01 instead of P<0.05 to define genes that were increased in EGFR-transfected MCF-7 cells (576 genes in all), 28 overlapped with the mutant EGFR NSCLC signature (chance expected of seven genes, P<1E 10, one-sided Fisher's exact test).

The use of a much more stringent cut off (p < 0.00001) still identified 219 to 229 transcripts.

Considering the cost implications of providing one to one CCBT sessions, a more stringent cut point for high risk may be more useful.

At a more stringent cut off level, still 63% of the sequences could be determined within ±10○C and 6% within ±5○C.

Since a 20% alteration in gene expression for many genes, such as transcription factors, can have dramatic cellular and biological responses [ 26, 32], a more stringent cut off (e.g. 2×) was not used in the current study.

The use of arbitrary cut points for considering studies and economic evaluations of high quality introduced subjectivity and it is possible that the use of more stringent cut points would lower the strength of the evidence on some outcomes.

(The 2005 baseline represents a win for the fossil-fuel industry; some had hoped for a more recent year, which would have meant more stringent cuts).How important is today's rule?

"No-one would have thanked us if we had stuck so dogmatically to our original timetable that even more stringent cuts and savings had been implemented during the course of this Parliament," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

For this view we used a more stringent cut-off, based on the overall structural similarities of the 10,000 structures generated, and calculated separately for each sequence as follows.

The value of nHI/nH did not essentially change when a more stringent cut-off E-value was used (nHI/nH was 0.027 and 0.032 for the E-values of 1e-5 and 1e-10, respectively).

We expected that a less stringent cut-off (e.g., 40%) would allow too many negative sequences in the phyloPWM, and that a more stringent cut-off (e.g., 90%) would not introduce enough variability.