Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(5)
To measure the distance between the models, we apply a novel Euclidean distance, approximations of Kullback-Leibler divergence, and a cross-likelihood ratio test.
To compare the fitness between the models, we used −2logL methods.
Differences between the models we evaluate here are in terms of what is assumed in regard to naturally acquired immunity, i.e. immunity acquired as a result of exposure to infection.
Analyses were run with and without controlling for practice as a fixed categorical factor, but as there were no significant differences between the models, we report them without including practice.
To further analyze the differences between the models we compared each parameter individually between the two models and the background by using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves, where we used the area under the ROC-curve (AUC) to quantify differences between the three parameter distributions (Methods) [ 27].
Similar(55)
Authors' Response: Indeed, there exists a similarity between the model we develop and analyze in this work and the models that can be developed and analyzed in the framework of contact processes.
In order to make it easier to assess the exact differences between these models, we list the abbreviations of all methods, their full name, and corresponding energy functionals in Table 1.
That is, in our formulation from the section Animal Models, between a model with some likelihood and latent field, H 0 : η i = β 0 + z i T β (6 or To evaluate the ability of the difference in DIC to correctly choose between these models we suggest the use of simulations.
If the likelihood ratio test revealed a significant difference between the two models, we assumed that the variability of the ECG parameter differed between the genetic groups.
For each MHC class I background and receptor staining, we compared the best RMS values obtained by the two-model using the F-test, and – since 16 comparisons were made between the two models – we performed the FDR correction for multiple comparisons on the results of the F-test.
In assessing the match between the psychophysical results and the model, we compared two parameterisations of the utility function: one with a loss aversion constant (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991) and one without.
More suggestions(15)
between the samples we
between the ones we
between the templates we
between the wines we
between the trees we
between the classes we
between the windows we
between the nations we
between the calories we
between the services we
between the products we
between the politics we
between the ideas we
between the possessions we
between the stories we
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