Sentence examples for the two discrepancies from inspiring English sources

The two discrepancies are: the pressure gradient required to extrude a gel through a fracture substantially greater than anticipated based on rheology measurements; different relationships of pressure gradient versus fracture width.

The two discrepancies are thought to be due to primer/probe specificity towards different stx alleles (data not shown).

Regarding the two discrepancies, a possible cause of the former might be tissue-type specific Lsm1 expression.

Also, the KL distance and the two discrepancies are logarithmic, and this perhaps provides a less intuitive notion of 'distance' than one based directly on α xy.

The two discrepancies are positive by construction and are defined as which measures discrepancy when it is true that X and Y are associated, and measuring discrepancy when independence holds; the range of integration depends on the random processes involved.

The two discrepancies seen after filtering with a probability score above 20 (SNP26 AG versus AA and SNP31 GG versus AG; RNA-Seq-based genotype versus BeadXPress-based genotype) could therefore possibly be true differences between RNA and corresponding DNA samples, due to A-to-I (G) RNA editing (e.g. [ 40] and allele-specific expression [ 41], respectively.

As might be expected, the distribution of types of updates is different between the two discrepancy classes, with most 'shallow' discrepancies leading to annotation refinement while a larger proportion of 'mismatch' discrepancies indicating incorrect or missing annotations.

In our study, the six discrepancies between SeptiFast with automatic extraction and blood cultures involved the growth of one bacteria by blood cultures not covered on the SeptiFast list (Bacteroides fragilis).

The four discrepancies were between G1 and G2.

The three discrepancies observed were linked to absence of pathology evidence in the Registry data source, corresponding to non-coded sampling procedures in the pathology data (the practitioner did not code the tumour), or to coding errors or inconsistencies.

The five discrepancies between adjustments determined here and those reported by Friedlaender et al. likely reflect either typographical errors in the adjustment table of Friedlaender et al. or incorrect adjustments applied by Friedlaender et al. in their combined data set.