Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(7)
In addition, Pb and Al were left out of the present analyses because of low precision and reliability (Janssen et al. 2005).
Out of the 38 sequences, six (GenBank: AB300830, AB300831, AB300841, AB300842, AB300844, AB300849) were excluded from the analyses because of low BLAST hit scores and alignment problems.
Moreover, others that are potentially useful markers of BCR (e.g., miR-429) were discarded from our analyses because of low concentration.
We excluded an additional 34 participants from the analyses because of low birth weight (< 2.5 kg, n = 31), a history of neonatal hypoxia (n = 1), and the presence of a seizure disorder (n = 2).
Resistance in other drugs could not be compared in these analyses because of low resistance prevalence which created instability in regression models (amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefoxitin, ceftiofur, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and nalidixic acid).
Resistance in other drugs could not be compared in these analyses because of low resistance prevalence which created instability in regression models (amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefoxitin, ceftiofur, ceftriaxone, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and nalidixic acid).
Similar(52)
Five statements were removed from the current analyses because of very low item variance for these items that was accounted for by their corresponding constructs.
Indels and SNPs within long tracks of simple repeats were not included in these statistics and subsequent analyses because of the low accuracy of sequencing in these areas.
This is because the editing procedure removed many genes encoding ribosomal proteins from the downstream analyses because of their low standard deviation.
The item "homoeopathist" was omitted from the analyses because of the low number of respondents.
We did not do sensitivity and subgroup analyses because of the low number of trials.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com