We use two types of benchmark competitors in this validation.
In a small study comparing two types of benchmarking interventions, 70 community physicians in the USA were randomly assigned to receive a multi-modal quality improvement intervention, including physician-specific benchmarking feedback or an identical intervention plus Achievable Benchmarks of Care (ABC) feedback [ 23].
The presentation of the IVM is supplemented with three types of benchmarking to support improved user understanding of the measure: numerical benchmarking, graphical benchmarking, and categorical benchmarking.
Five types of benchmark bridges are designed with steel plate girders, prestressed concrete boxes, reinforced concrete T-girders, prestressed concrete I-girders, and closed steel box girders.
When BioProspector (alone, unfiltered) was applied to the three types of benchmark data sets from Sandve et al. (2007), the average number of true positive motifs (nTPs) predicted was 1191 while the number of false positives (nFPs) was 10,785.
Although a large number of sSNV calls, especially high-quality ones, were shared among these tools, the overall observation across our three types of benchmark data demonstrated that VarScan 2 excelled at the detection of high-quality sSNVs (high coverage and allele frequency), while MuTect outperformed all other tools in detecting low-quality ones.
There are two types of prevalent schemes: grandfathering and benchmarking [15, 16].
In this benchmark, two types of cells are analyzed: a small cell corresponding to a standard pressurized water reactor (PWR), and a wide cell corresponding to a highly moderated PWR.
In the present study, eight short reads assemblers, representing four various assembly strategies, were benchmarked against two types of simulated short reads datasets derived from four different genomes.
