Sentences with phrase «point results derived»

Reed Technology and Information Services Inc. (Reed Tech), a LexisNexis company, recently launched LexisNexis TotalPatent One ™; a patent research solution designed to deliver on - point results derived from the most comprehensive and in - depth content collection of patent and non-patent literature available.

The product is «designed to deliver on - point results derived from the most comprehensive and in - depth content collection of patent and non-patent literature available» using «state - of - the - art search technology,» according to the announcement.

Not exact matches

As a result, the unemployment rate, which is derived from the household survey, has fallen by about 1/2 a percentage point from its recent peak, although this decline is also partly explained by a large fall in the participation rate.

Participants in the twelve groups completing the training pointed to personal growth resulting from freedom of communication, self - expression, and mutual support — as the major satisfaction they derived.

These virtual results are based on the actual data points derived from StriVectin's extensive clinical studies for StriVectin - SD ™ Intensive Concentrate for Stretch Marks & Wrinkles and StriVectin - SD ™ Eye Concentrate for Wrinkles.

However, the results of more recent phylogenetic analyses, derived from comparisons between sequences of specific genes and of whole genomes, seemed to point to Ctenophora as the first group that parted company with the lineage from which the rest of the animal kingdom (including sponges) evolved.

As the difference of the missing values was more than 20 percentage points, no reliable conclusions can be derived from the results.

The state system would then subtract each student score from the low value of 100 scale score points) for the Meets Standards proficiency level resulting in derived values of -10, +10, and +15.

Can you point me to a reasonably simple calculation where one can derive this kind of result?

But the mismatching from the posterior CDF points resulting from a uniform prior Bayesian method is truly dreadful, as is that from HPD regions derived using that method.

In it, he now claims that some points that Miskolczi originally seemed to derive as theoretical results were actually extracted from observations; of course, this makes an incoherent mess out of the argumentation.

Also, for me, if I made a point and someone cited a couple of presented results in the genuine peer - reviewed literature (not E&E etc.) that showed I was wrong, that would refute what I said and I'd re-think both my opinion and conclusions I was deriving from it.

The point is that these results are not derived directly from fundamental theory, hence the models are phenomenological.

Even within academic computational science, attaining the transparency required to confirm or falsify results is Big Data's Achilles heel; observers have begun to point to a «credibility crisis» that derives from inadequate disclosure of data sets and methods.