Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Accuracy distributions between models were compared by a paired t-test.
The results between models were compared using the % relative bias (%RB) in point estimate and the % relative width difference in confidence interval (%RW), using the CFM as reference [ 15].
Similar(58)
Discriminations between nested models were compared with likelihood ratio tests.
Overall accuracies between various models were compared with a pairwise t-test (α = 0.05) based on identical validation sets within each NAM population.
The effect estimates from the within-sibship and between-non-sibling models were compared using a Hausman test in which the null hypothesis assumes that there is no difference between the two estimates.
In the final step, regression models were compared between undergraduate and graduate participants.
> Between one- and three-class models were compared for drinking frequency, and up to four classes were considered for typical consumption.
The estimation models were compared via correlations between SQ output indices and hearing test results.
Nested models (that is, M0 versus M3 and M8A versus M8; nonpositively selected versus positively selected models) were compared using the LRT: 2X the log-likelihood difference between the two models can be compared to a χ2 distribution, with the number of degrees of freedom equal to the difference between the two models.
For this study, the sensitivity between the models is compared through the degree of robustness (DOR).
The goodness of fit between alternative models was compared using the maximum likelihood technique.
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