"tool categories" is correct and usable in written English.
For example, you could use the phrase in a sentence like this: "The home improvement store sells a wide variety of tools, organized into different tool categories."
A move towards more comprehensive quality analyses is not yet seen with evaluations of other drug management tool categories.
For instance, with a column for each feature (document type, annotation tool, categories of entities, number of mentions, format, availability, etc).
Thus, the final stimulus set consisted of 15 objects each in the animal and fruit/vegetable categories, and 14 objects each in the vehicle and tool categories.
While the proportion that included a patient-focused outcome was similar to the other drug management tool categories, none of these studies included a clinical outcome.
This finding was predicted a priori, given that the region is consistently activated during conceptual processing of tool categories and tool-related verbs using both pictorial and linguistic stimuli (e.g., Beauchamp et al. 2002; Kemmerer et al. 2008; for recent reviews see Thompson-Schill 2003; Beauchamp and Martin 2007; Martin and Simmons 2008).
In the life science tool category, Muken believes that there will be a significant contraction in demand for capital equipment, as companies will be spending less on research and development tools.
Persuasive technologies can then increase the chances of people to behave in a specific manner by increasing the motivation (rhetorical function, typical by narratives or social cues), or by making the task easier (the tool category).
To improve the clarity of OMICtools, we suggest that submitters add tools with multiple applications to the common tool category.
Analysis by number of endpoints included in the studies in each drug management tool category (n = 76) The predominant study endpoint category utilized in evaluating the impact of drug management program tools was plan focused (53/76 studies, 68%; Table 3).
Objects belonging to the tool category (as compared to non-tools) are particularly likely to activate this type of features (e.g., Danckert and Goodale, 2001; Kenemans et al., 2000).
A good example is the study by Handy et al. (2003) which found a larger P1 for items belonging to the tool category (as compared to non-tools) in the dominant (as compared to the non-dominant) hemifield even in an incidental encoding paradigm in which subjects were instructed to ignore the meaning of the presented items.
