Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(4)
Exact(1)
While most differences between methods are statistically significant (P-values <0.01 for Wilcoxon rank sum test with Bonferroni correction), differences are largely small and the ranking for most methods is therefore not stable and depends on the experimental data type, the source network, the subnetwork size and other factors (see Supplementary Material).
Similar(59)
However, the correlation between methods was statistically significant (p<0.0001), apart from patients with atrial fibrillation.
All main and interaction effects of factors on prediction accuracy were found to be significantly different from zero (p < 0.001) in the ANOVA (Table S8) and prediction accuracy differences between methods were statistically significant (p < 0.05, Table S7), practically relevant and consistent in repeated sampling.
To further verify whether the differences between these methods are statistically significant, we use approximate randomization [35] for statistical significance testing on F-beta.
The differences between the two proposed methods and the FM and BGSA methods are statistically significant.
The difference between both methods was statistically significant (p < 0.001; kappa = 0.194).
Two-sample t tests were applied to the yields obtained by the different methods, and the differences between all methods were statistically significant within 95%% confidence interval.
Averaging over comparisons, we find the improvement in concordance with vs. between component methods is statistically significant beyond computational precision (P < 1e-16).
In the analysis of variance of the acute infection counts, neither the variation between individual mice nor the difference between the counting methods was statistically significant.
To compare the results of the two different methods, the values of MAP, HR, PO2 arterial oxygenation), PCO2 arterial carbondioxide), and HCO 3(hydrogen carbonate) 15 minutes after the procedure were used, and the differences between the two methods were statistically significant (P< 0.05).
The difference between the two methods was statistically significant (p < 0.005) (chi-squared).
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