Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(16)
There were no consistent or important differences between the two scoring methods in terms of test-retest reliability, validity correlations, or known-groups hypothesis tests.
Furthermore, we found considerable agreement between the two scoring methods with only minor variations observed in final scores.
The correlation between the two scoring systems is high, approximately 0.9 [ 43, 44].
The potential redundant content rather than complementation between the two scoring functions caused that the nDCG of RankBC was lowest.
There was a correlation (r = 0.9, P <0.001) between the two scoring systems for all the 26 cartilage samples.
We studied the correlation of the scores obtained between the two scoring methods with the priority scores of the original panel.
Similar(44)
Spearman's rank correlations were calculated between the three scoring events.
Adam Oates supplied the assist on both Capitals goals, despite getting a bloody nose from a puck in the face between the two scores.
The agreement between the two scores was evaluated with the Kappa coefficient.
A score of 9.9 is considered no whilst 10.1 is considered yes, despite only a 0.2 point difference between the two scores.
Intraclass correlation coefficient with a two-way random effect model also was applied, checking for consistency between the two scores of the same rater.
More suggestions(3)
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