With Group 1, where all factors apparently seem to favor reference to the S1 Goal, there is 54 % reference to the Goal of S1, while in Group 2, where the Coherence Relation favors reference to the subject, this causes the subject to be referenced at the much higher rate of 83%%.
This represents "a paradigm shift", compared to previous methods whereby statistics concerning given populations are computed and published and a new individual subject then is referenced to the closest matching patient population for clinical decision support [ 12].
Its only statement on the subject was a passing reference to the absence of statutory authorization: "Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes".
In sentences with non-TOP verbs, reference to the subject was 83.48 %, and reference to non-subjects was just 16.52 %, whereas in sentences with TOP verbs, reference to the subject fell to 68.83 %, and reference to the non-subject argument present, the Goal with TOP verbs, was 31.16 %, almost twice the frequency of the reference to non-subjects in the non-TOP sentences.
A reference untreated, healthy subject was developed using a corresponding reference parameterization (details on model equations and parameters are included in Supplementary Tables S1 3).
For CNV detection on the X chromosome, each subject was compared with a reference set comprising the remaining subjects of the same gender on the same plate.
The Pelvis Angle Y from the Upright Standing posture for each subject was used as the reference Pelvis Angle.
The Thorax Angle X from the Upright Standing posture for each subject was used as the reference angle.
The spatially normalized FDG-PET scan for each subject was compared with a normative reference database generated from the FDG-PET scans of normal individuals.
One subject was chosen to define a reference set of brain images (the remaining T1 and T2 data for this subject were discarded to avoid bias in the final result).
