If – and that would be surprising – newer measurements will show the values to be so significantly different from those found in previous measurements, this would be an important step forward in our understanding of cell composition.
It is not surprising that measurements from the Project, which at times processed > 7,000 samples per month, would not achieve the same level of accuracy as federally funded projects with smaller sample sizes and smaller ranges of exposure.
That the Voc does not trend with the placement of the HOMO energy level of the neat constituents is not surprising because measurements of HOMO energy levels of the neat constituents do not account for interfacial dipoles and vacuum level misalignment that may be present in the bulk-heterojunction blends.
This is not surprising given measurements in live cells showing that both they and Vps4 are present for a few minutes or less at their site of action during viral particle release (Baumgartel et al., 2011; Jouvenet et al., 2011) or cytokinetic abscission (Elia et al., 2012).
At first sight these results appear surprising because objective measurements are usually considered more precise and reproducible than subjective estimation.
This is not surprising, because classical measurements like P– V loops are often less sensitive to detailed mechanical changes.
This may not be surprising because the measurements would reflect to some extent both the intensity of the exposure and the probability of exposure, whereas the cut points were based on intensity of exposure only.
This is not surprising since their measurement by TPTD share some common components.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that a measurement taken at a single time point may struggle to predict the probability of an outcome, where its likelihood of occurring may fluctuate along with levels of risk factors.
This result was quite surprising, as earlier psychophysical measurements of thresholds have suggested a central role for divisive attenuation [16], [24].
