Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(3)
Exact(2)
Considerable effort was invested in evaluating and comparing different approaches for RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and PCR amplification, and substantial differences between methods were observed (data not shown).
This study showed that, although the interpretation of results was not affected, differences between methods were observed.
Similar(58)
However, with a greater number of monomer substitutions, a more clear separation in accuracy between methods was observed.
Large differences between methods are observed, for instance the RF model in terms of MCC is performing around the average, but both RF and RF_PCM underperform in terms of early enrichment (BEDROC 0.54 ± 0.03 and 0.56 ± 0.04 vs. the mean 0.66 ± 0.03).
A general disagreement between methods was observed.
No significant differences of the fluorescent intensities of the different analytes between both methods were observed (Figure 4).
Overall, over 90% of all gene-expression profiles could be confirmed by qPCR, although quantitative differences between the methods were observed (this paper & data not shown).
No significant differences between the methods were observed.
The results obtained from all four methods were interpretable and no discrepancies between the methods were observed.
In instances where differences between the methods were observed, GBLUP always outperformed bagging of the QTL models.
Statistically significant differences between survey methods were observed for the Conduct subscale, with higher problem ratings via phone, while for Peer problems and Prosocial less problems and more Prosocial behaviour were reported via phone.
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