Suggestions(5)
Similar(57)
Each laboratory used different DNA binding dyes (Resolight© on the LC480 instrument and Syto-9 on the ABI 7500 instrument) also reported to be source for discrepancies [18], [19].
For each source of discrepancy a correction factor, treated as a random variable, is assigned and guidelines for the quantification of the statistical parameters of these correction factors are presented within the framework of the proposed uncertainty analysis model.
There are many potential sources for discrepancies: different usage of the building in model and reality, design, construction and commissioning deficiencies, software limitation and modeling errors and different weather in reality than in the model are the factors typically considered.
The subjects could detect the probe on the discordant-cues axis (on which neither of the models so far can detect the probe) if they can infer this change in structure – a potential explanation for the exact source of discrepancy identified earlier between the observed results and our model so far.
Whilst we are unable to provide a full explanation for this, one possible source of discrepancy is the difference between our study and in both papers by Tesseur [52] and Harris [54] in the use of transgenic mice expressing APOEε3 and APOEε4 in neurons.
An under-recognized source of discrepancy arises when different rules query for data from different time ranges.
A potential major source of discrepancy between studies was the method of screening for G6PD deficiency.
From the technical point of view, the density of the markers is also critical for the power of such studies and could be a source of discrepancy.
The possible source of discrepancy is identified from the analysis.
Another source of discrepancy might be the measurement technique used.
For any outcome where either the C8 panel found a probable association or the FIM yielded an association with PFOA, the details from the C8 panel were considered for potential sources of discrepancy to gauge whether there was a likely false positive or false negative from the FIM.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com