Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(6)
Fig. 2 Boxplots of the means over 2001-2007 for the differences between the methods at the sectoral level.
There were no differences between the methods at group level; however, differences occurred at the individual level and the largest differences were between pairwise comparisons and the five point rating scale.
We also assessed the correspondence between the methods at the dyadic and individual levels.
Therefore, we concluded that there was insufficient evidence to assume any bias between the methods at the 95% confidence level (Table 5).
The range of LE between ethnic groups was larger for the SIR method which included health information than for the GWM method which did not, and appeared to be mainly due to differences between the methods at the highest LE rather than the lowest LE.
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the space scale has an impact on the classification of the subject's exposure in the QC system with relatively low levels of agreement between the methods at the sub-system scale and the methods at the system scale.
Similar(54)
The differences obtained between the four methods at the sub-system scale demonstrate the influence of the proximity on the subject's classification in the QC system.
The gap between the methods increases at higher false positive fractions concerning the average rank.
However, the disparity between the methods remains at higher SNV fractions (C18 and C50), where MuTect can achieve higher sensitivity with a lower false positive rate.
As shown in Table 3, substantial levels of agreement between the methods applied at different space scales were observed for TTHMs and HAA9.
The calculated t values indicated that there is no significant difference between the two methods at the 95% confidence level and thus there is no bias in the method.
More suggestions(18)
between the mechanisms at
between the measures at
between the measurements at
between the devices at
between the means at
between the modes at
between the compartments at
between the layers at
between the programs at
between the analysts at
between the companies at
between the valves at
between the cars at
between the circles at
between the sides at
between the auditors at
between the antennas at
between the tests at
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