Suggestions(1)
Exact(1)
There was no statistically significant difference between groups for depth change.
Similar(58)
The results revealed that there was a significant difference between the groups for pocket depth and clinical attachment level.
The following factors were compared between groups: age, gender, depth of invasion, histologic type, lymph node spread, and stage.
For a comparison between groups values were corrected for branch-depth (overall conservation) by normalizing the values to an identical average in all alignments.
Marsupials diverged from eutherian mammals about 148 million years ago (MYA), and mammalian Subclass Theria that contains these groups diverged from monotremes (Subclass Prototheria) about 166 MYA [ 20], so comparisons between these major mammal groups provide depth for evolutionary comparisons.
There are some finitely presented groups for which the depth function is unknown and very interesting.
Results for occupied groups were substantially unchanged for depth-7 trees (128 groups, results not shown).
In [14], an object-based SVC method was proposed, where depth ordinal (based on occlusion reasoning) and depth consistency between detected objects are analyzed for depth estimation.
Catecholamine support and pulmonary function were not different between the groups at equivalent depths of sedation.
Both perspectives were primarily concerned with between-group variabilities rather than the relationships between learners' L1 and L2 lexical network and their implications for L2 vocabulary depth assessment.
Invasive depth is another important factor for prognosis of patients, although our research did not show any statistical significance in nuclear maspin expression between the two groups that invasive depth is less than or equal to or more than 1/2 of the whole layer, it disclosed from another point that change of nuclear maspin expression is the early event in tumor progression and metastasis.
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