Sentence examples for outcome samples from inspiring English sources

The capacity of Teschendorff et al.'s seven gene immune response module to identify good outcome samples from among estrogen-negative tumors may constitute yet more support for this association.

These survival curves further show that the classifier in the test sets is unable to discriminate the good prognosis samples that do not overexpress the immune response-module ('good-down') from the poor outcome samples.

Differential binding analysis found 1,192 ER-binding events that were stronger in the poor prognosis/metastasis group in comparison with the good outcome samples and found 599 binding events more prevalent in the good outcome tumors.

This is in line with recent findings of Ross-Innes et al. [ 19] who studied ER-binding events in primary frozen breast cancer samples and demonstrated the acquisition of additional ER-binding regions in tumors with poor prognosis, as compared to good outcome samples.

Cluster 1 was characterised by a higher expression of angiogenic cytokines and a lower expression of MMPs compared with cluster 2. To evaluate an association between the stromal and tumour epithelial expression of angiogenetic factors/MMPs and clinical outcome, samples were dichotomised according to the median expression value of each single factor.

A DPCM produces an outcome sample for each input sample.

However, they present important differences as well, which can be summarized as follows: A DPCM produces an outcome sample for each input sample.

Secondary outcomes and hospital process measures will only be collected from the records of patients included in the primary outcome sample, described above.

However, no more than 30% of included reports presented the primary and second outcome, sample size calculation and outcome estimation, etc.

For the generation of alerts outcome, sample size was sufficient to include all variables in the multivariate model using alternating logistic regression.

This dissociation could result from increased adverse events, methodological problems, insensitivity of clinical outcome, sample size and other possible processes other than angiographic vasospasm contributing to poor outcome [ 28, 29].