Individual Results Sample Clauses

Individual Results. Figure 3.2 Typical MAP (a) and rCBF (b) results in response to cuff deflation in one healthy subject.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Individual Results. Figure 4.4 Typical time course responses of MAP and cerebral hemodynamics in a reprehensive subject.
Sample 1
Individual Results. Figure 5.1 shows illustrative results of MAP and cerebral hemodynamics from a control subject (C1 in Table 5.1) without presyncope (Figure 5.1a), and a subject (S1 in Table 5.1) with presyncope (Figure 5.1b) and corresponding MSEs of the two-line fittings (Figure 5.1c). Sudden changes at the onset of HUT were observed in all measured parameters from the two subjects (Figures 5.1a and 5.1b). During HUT, all variables in the control subject (C1) were relatively stable (Figure 5.1a). In the control subject, the minima of rMAP, rCBF, r[HbO2] and rTHC (C1) were 85%, 68%, 96% and 95% of the 30-second mean value right after tilt-onset (assigned to be 100%), respectively, and the maximum r[Hb] was 129% (Figure 5.1a). By contrast, most parameters measured from the presyncope subject (S1) showed relatively larger variations. The rCBF reduction during HUT was associated with a decrease in r[HbO2] and an increase in r[Hb]. Since [HbO2] accounts for more than 60% of the THC in CBF [154], rTHC primarily followed the trend of r[HbO2]. Two stages of physiological responses were observed in the measured variables during HUT including slow and gradual changes at Stage I and rapid and dramatic changes at Stage II. For each parameter, the break-point between the two stages was determined mathematically by the minimum value of MES. However, nadirs of MSEs were not always clear in all measured parameters. The maximum changes during HUT were observed at Stage II. The minimum value of rCBF (15%) was much smaller than those of rMAP (67%), r[HbO2] (65%) and rTHC (94%). The maximum r[Hb] was 150%. The onset times of rapid changes in rCBF, r[HbO2], r[Hb], and rTHC at the break-points were -3, +231, +320, and +234 seconds relative to that of rMAP,
Sample 1

Related to Individual Results

  • Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:

  • Quantitative Results i. Total number and percentage of instances in which the IRO determined that the Paid Claims submitted by CHSI (Claim Submitted) differed from what should have been the correct claim (Correct Claim), regardless of the effect on the payment.

  • Expected Results VA’s agreement with DoD to provide educational assistance is a statutory requirement of Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S.C. and Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S.C (Post-9/11 GI Xxxx). These laws require VA to make payments to eligible veterans, service members, guard, reservist, and family members under the transfer of entitlement provisions. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 is placed on the DoD. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on VA, while the responsibility of providing initial eligibility data for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on DoD. Thus, the two agencies must exchange data to ensure that VA makes payments only to those who are eligible for a program. Without an exchange of enrollment and eligibility data, VA would not be able to establish or verify applicant and recipient eligibility for the programs. Subject to the due process requirements, set forth in Article VII.B.1., 38 U.S.C. §3684A, VA may suspend, terminate, or make a final denial of any financial assistance on the basis of data produced by a computer matching program with DoD. To minimize administrative costs of implementation of the law and to maximize the service to the veteran or service member, a system of data exchanges and subsequent computer matching programs was developed. The purposes of the computer matching programs are to minimize the costs of administering the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; facilitate accurate payment to eligible veterans or service members training under the Chapter of the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; and to avoid payment to those who lose eligibility. The current automated systems, both at VA and DoD, have been developed over the last twenty-two years. The systems were specifically designed to utilize computer matching in transferring enrollment and eligibility data to facilitate accurate payments and avoid incorrect payments. The source agency, DMDC, stores eligibility data on its computer based system of record. The cost of providing this data to VA electronically are minimal when compared to the cost DMDC would incur if the data were forwarded to VA in a hard-copy manner. By comparing records electronically, VA avoids the personnel costs of inputting data manually as well as the storage costs of the DMDC documents. This results in a VA estimated annual savings of $26,724,091 to VA in mailing and data entry costs. DoD reported an estimated annual savings of $12,350,000. A cost-benefit analysis is at Attachment 1. In the 32 years since the inception of the Chapter 30 program, the cost savings of using computer matching to administer the benefit payments for these educational assistance programs have remained significant. The implementation of Chapter 33 has impacted the Chapter 30 program over the past 8 years (fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017). Statistics show a decrease of 23 percent in the number of persons who ultimately use Chapter 30 from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. The number of persons who use Chapter 33 has consistently been above 700,000 in the past four years. VA foresees continued cost savings due to the number of persons eligible for the education programs.‌

  • Narrative Results i. A description of Xxxxxxx’x billing and coding system(s), including the identification, by position description, of the personnel involved in coding and billing.

  • Dissemination of own Results 8.3.1.1 During the Project and for a period of 1 year after the end of the Project, the dissemination of own Results by one or several Parties including but not restricted to publications and presentations, shall be governed by the procedure of Article 29.1 of the Grant Agreement subject to the following provisions. Prior notice of any planned publication shall be given to the other Parties at least 45 calendar days before the publication. Any objection to the planned publication shall be made in accordance with the Grant Agreement in writing to the Coordinator and to the Party or Parties proposing the dissemination within 30 calendar days after receipt of the notice. If no objection is made within the time limit stated above, the publication is permitted.

  • Publication of Results The National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. § 20112) requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof. As such, NASA may publish unclassified and non-Proprietary Data resulting from work performed under this Agreement. The Parties will coordinate publication of results allowing a reasonable time to review and comment.

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • Ownership of Results Any interest of Contractor or its subcontractors, in the Deliverables, including any drawings, plans, specifications, blueprints, studies, reports, memoranda, computation sheets, computer files and media or other documents prepared by Contractor or its subcontractors for the purposes of this Agreement, shall become the property of and will be transmitted to City. However, unless expressly prohibited elsewhere in this Agreement, Contractor may retain and use copies for reference and as documentation of its experience and capabilities.

  • Budget Information Funding Source Funding Year of Appropriation Budget List Number Amount EPIC 18-19 301.001F $500,000 EPIC 20-21 301.001H $500,000 R&D Program Area: EDMFO: EDMF TOTAL: $ 1,000,000 Explanation for “Other” selection Reimbursement Contract #: Federal Agreement #:

  • Audit Results If an audit by a Party determines that an overpayment or an underpayment has occurred, a notice of such overpayment or underpayment shall be given to the other Party together with those records from the audit which support such determination.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.