Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(2)
We further show that levels of consistency vary substantially between methods, with two methods (SAP and Fr-TM-align) producing more consistent alignments than the rest.
By directly comparing the assay to a single IS reference method, we found that there was a minimal bias between methods with two lots of reagents.
Similar(58)
Links had far less agreement between methods, with all three internet-based networks capturing much <1%% of the links in the traditional network.
This study tested: (1), the efficacy of the overlap correction function in the WinRHIZO system; and (2), the consistency of fine root measurements between the WinRHIZO and Tennant methods with two sets of root measurement data from winter wheat (Triticum aestivium L).
There were five significant correlations ranging from 0.44 to 0.71, with the strongest between methods two and four, and five non-significant correlations (Table 2).
The Fisher's exact test showed that 99% of the SNPs showed no differences in allelic frequencies between the two methods, with only three SNPs showing significant differences in allelic frequencies.
Use the same method with two coins.
Transmembrane (TM) predictions differed between methods: TMHMM found three proteases with a TM domain, all in family A22; TUPS detected a total of 5 TM domains among the A1 and A22 families (Table 1; see Additional file information 1).
When MWT performance was evaluated against a standard reference system, very good agreement between two methods, with R > 0.85 for all indices studied, was demonstrated.
The MeDIP-seq DMRs identified across all seven patient tumour/xenograft comparisons overlapped with 48 probes present on the 450 K array; importantly, the directionality of methylation change between patient tumour and xenograft was 100% concordant between the two methods, with the same 22 gains and 26 losses of methylation identified in the PDXs.
Good agreement is obtained between these two methods, with a discrepancy range of 1 8%%.
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