Examples of using Differences may in English and their translations into Portuguese
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Official/political
Such differences may have safety implications.
Possible explanations for these differences may be as follows.
These differences may be due to sampling variations.
With correction for intra-individual variability, other differences may also be considered statistically significant for a value of p< 0.05.
These differences may be explained by the use of distinct methodologies.
People also translate
According to the literature, these differences may be explained by the demographic context of the population studied.
Such differences may be attributed to the thresholds recording procedure.
The greater statistical power of the meta-analyzes to detect differences may explain this discrepancy in the results, although the meta-analysis may be influenced by selection bias in clinical trials.
Differences may occur in the form of resources such as patents, properties, proprietary technologies, or relationships.
Prevalence as high as this has been also reported by other authors,however it is still possible to find lower figures 35.1%, and such differences may be explained by different methodological designs and by the ways to evaluate headache, since some studies classify as has having headache people presenting at least one headache episode in the last three months and other studies consider one episode in the last year.
These differences may explain the discrepancy between results.
It is speculated that these differences may also cause changes in the effectiveness, quality, and efficacy of anesthesia.
The differences may be related to prescription profile or health service organization, which could not be investigated in this study.
One hypothesis for these differences may be related to differences between tasks and stimuli used in studies.
Such differences may be due to the fact that the authors considered values between 0.1 and 0.33 dBNPS as the minimum value for the occurrence of the suppression effect, while this study considered the value equal or above 0.5 dBSPL.
One of the reasons explaining these differences may exactly reside on the impact of different risk factors on the inflammatory response.
The differences may be accounted for continuing discovery of additional ballcourts.
However, these differences may be interpreted as sensitive or even offensive.
Some differences may not have been detected due to the small sample size.
Notwithstanding, the influence that these differences may have on the neurocognitive results of carotid revascularization has not yet been fully explained, since large-scale studies were focused on strokes.
These differences may be explained in part by genetic factors.
All these differences may have impaired the neurotological diagnosis.
These differences may be attributed to the different methods and field studies employed.
These differences may be the result of the variation in the types of intervention.
The differences may point towards a cure, and millions of lives could be saved in the future.
These differences may be due to the type of sample, place and type of data collection instrument.
The differences may be associated to socio-economic factors that were not addressed by the present study.
The differences may be justified by the use of different techniques of image acquisition FGRE versus SSFP.
These differences may be the result of selective mortality, premature death of socially disadvantaged segments.
These differences may be associated with local experience and the most common type of indication in a given region.