Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
Due to the differences in pad test methodology it was not possible to make direct comparisons between populations at baseline.
Similar(59)
We examined whether the association between psychological distress and incident type 2 diabetes differed between populations at different baseline risk levels of type 2 diabetes as assessed by the presence of prediabetes and the level of FRS.
In this evaluation, we also analyzed the group of subjects treated with pregabalin in a subanalysis comparing pregabalin in monotherapy versus pregabalin as an addon therapy, with the aim of determining whether a difference in cost or health benefit exists between these two treatment populations at baseline and at end-of-trial.
All cohorts included healthy populations at baseline.
We first verified that our populations at baseline were representative.
Interestingly the difference between the two trials is not readily explained by a difference in the mean haemoglobin values for the two populations at baseline.
The r values were first estimated without accounting for kinship in CCLONES or subpopulation structure in ADEPT2 to compare baseline LD between populations at different scales (i.e., within genes, within LGs, and between LGs).
This yielded a data set of 28,277 comparisons from which we estimated the correlation between the activation of the population at baseline to the activation of each individual neuron in response to the conditioned stimulus (CS).
Mean IBDQ total scores (FAS, non-imputation population) at baseline were similar between treatment groups, ranging from 123.8 to 134.5 in the tofacitinib groups (123.2 in the placebo group).
The clinical characteristics of the population at baseline were similar between treatment groups (supplementary Table 1): the mean duration of diabetes was 6.2 years, BMI 32.4 kg/m, A1C 8.3%, and FPG 173 mg/dl.
As shown in Table 1, patient characteristics for ITT population at baseline were well balanced between the two groups in both comparisons.
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