Sentence examples for unexplained discrepancies from inspiring English sources

In June the Observer published an investigation revealing unexplained discrepancies in the trust's accounts involving "related companies" that were providing services for large fees to the chain's schools.

Simply including a line for "unexplained" discrepancies, as the I.M.F. did in its tables outlining state spending, is a pointed swipe at the government and its pattern of stonewalling the fund, Mr. Ganesan said.

Although the assistant, Natavia S. Lowery, 26, has confessed in writing and on videotape to having bludgeoned Ms. Stein to death in October, her lawyer, Ronald L. Kuby, said that there were unexplained discrepancies in the timeline that investigators gave for Ms. Stein's last hours.

However, several unexplained discrepancies in the results weaken this literature.

One possible explanation for these as yet unexplained discrepancies is that the amount of money that CCT beneficiaries receive is not in itself sufficient to satisfy a household's needs and therefore its electoral impact is ultimately negligible.

The FDA outlined several violations at Mylan's Nashik facility, including a failure to "thoroughly investigate" unexplained discrepancies in drug batches and cited examples of "missing, deleted, and lost data".

"And if so, would that information have been helpful in making some of these recommendations?" In another unexplained discrepancy, the authors chose to adopt a figure of 25,000 as the number of people evacuated from the towers that day, although other analysts have placed the number at half that.

Nearly two-thirds of inpatients have at least one unexplained discrepancy in their admission medication history, and some studies found up to 3 medication discrepancies per patient [ 5- 7].

A review of comparisons with protocols showed that about half of journal articles describing RCTs had an unexplained discrepancy in the primary outcomes.

In sharp contrast with the so-called 'contradiction' discussed above, there is an enormous, unexplained discrepancy between the results of Boumezbeur et al. (2010) and those of Pellerin-Magistretti group (Bouzier-Sore et al., 2003, 2006).

Three patients (2.9%) remained with an unexplained discrepancy even after re-evaluation of the cytological specimens and repeated FISH analysis of the routine tissue sections of the primary tumour.