Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
Heterogeneity in allele frequency distributions between samples were tested by estimating Fisher's exact P-value for each locus and population pair by Markov chain method and employing Fisher's method to test for joint null hypothesis of no difference as implemented in GENEPOP 3.4 (Raymond and Rousset 1995).
Similar(59)
The significance of the differences between samples was tested using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparisons (p < 0.05).
The significance of any differences between samples was tested by Student's t-test (unpaired) or ANOVA with Duncan's post hoc test, using IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 20 (IBM Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia).
Differences in gene expression between different samples were tested with edgeR [ 48] and DESeq [ 49] packages using read counts from reference-guided mapping.
3, we tested if the orientation of samples could be considered random using the Rayleigh test and differences in orientation between and among samples were tested with Watson-Williams test [39].
Quantitative differences in microbial variables between mucilage and seawater samples were tested using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The differences in SHMT1 expression between normal and tumor samples were tested using a paired Student's t-test.
For biofilm inactivation studies, mean values between treated and untreated samples were tested for significance by Student's t -test.
Differences in the distributions of age, screening history, cytology and HC2 outcomes between included and excluded samples were tested with the χ test.
Differences in prevalence between medical records and administrative data were tested using McNemar's test, and concordance measures between the two ICD samples were tested using a Pearson chi-square or z-test (for under/overestimation).
Samples were tested between 5° and 55° 2-theta (2θ) with a step size of 0.02° and the counting time per step was 5 s.
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