The phrase "all samples were assigned" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts such as research, data analysis, or any situation where samples are categorized or designated for specific purposes.
Example: "In the study, all samples were assigned to either the control group or the experimental group for comparison."
Alternatives: "all samples were allocated" or "all samples were designated".
As can be seen in Figure 5 all samples were assigned to the correct group: an observed value of 1 representing irradiated samples and a value of 0 control samples.
During cross-validation, on average, 91% of the ALL samples were assigned to one single correct subtype, 3.4% were assigned to multiple subtypes including the correct subtype, and 5.6% were assigned to an incorrect or no subtype (Table 2).
In the present study, all samples were assigned to 14 biotopes, which included the guts and mantles of sea cucumbers and nudibranchs as separate biotopes.
All samples were assigned to hunt areas, which were nested within larger herd units (Fig. 1).
All samples were assigned to 8 different pools (Table 1).
In each multiply imputed qPCR dataset, all samples were assigned a single imputed copy number group.
This procedure is repeated until all samples are assigned to genotype classes.
Initially all samples are assigned equal weights for training the first model or classifier.
The BubR1 expression level in lymph follicles, which were equally stained in all samples, was assigned an expression score of 1. Weaker staining was assigned a score of 0, and samples with stronger staining than that in the follicles were assigned a score of 2 (Fig. S1).
Particle-size distribution analysis by the sieve pipette and by laser diffraction corroborate that all the samples were assigned to the same textural class.
All the samples were assigned to training or testing sets: two thirds of the samples (n = 77) were assigned to the training sets, the remaining third being assigned to testing sets (n = 38; Figure S1).
