Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(60)
Differences between groups were evaluated by log-rank statistics.
Differences in responses between groups were evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Differences between groups were evaluated using parametric or non-parametric test as appropriate (χ2 or Fisher's test for categorical variables, and analysis of variance or Mann–Whitney U-test).
For the statistical analysis of the neural growth cone results, the differences between groups were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test (non-parametric) followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test, as the data were not normally distributed.
The differences between groups were evaluated with independent sample t tests.
Differences between groups were evaluated using 2-way ANOVAs on log-transformed data.
Categorical variable differences between groups were evaluated using separate Pearson chi-squared tests.
BMI and age differences between groups were evaluated with a non-paired t test.
Comparisons between groups were evaluated by two-sided Student's t test or one-way analysis of variance.
Differences between groups were evaluated by unpaired Student's t test; intra-group variations were studied using paired Student's t test.
Individual comparisons between groups were evaluated post hoc using the Mann-Whitney test with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing.
More suggestions(17)
between groups were investigated
between groups were calculated
between groups were estimated
between populations were evaluated
between parameters were evaluated
between groups were observed
between zones were evaluated
between sensitivities were evaluated
between groups were analysed
between groups were detected
between values were evaluated
between groups were accepted
between groups were examined
between scores were evaluated
between factors were evaluated
between biomarkers were evaluated
between measurements were evaluated
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