Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
When comparing both methods, a high correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.934) was observed (Fig. 3).
This caused for both methods a high specificity value.
For both methods a high sensitivity and a high concordance for the detection of somatic mutations in tumours has been reported (Gonzalez-Bosquet et al, 2011).
Similar(57)
Both methods display a high specificity of 98%, and can be useful as a rule-in marker.
RF-size values obtained with both methods showed a high correspondence (Pearson's linear correlation r = 0.77, p<0.0001) confirming the data obtained from handplotting.
Rewardingly, the distributions obtained by both methods portrayed a high degree of similarity.
Both methods have a high rate of fusion, up to 80% in simple discectomy, and over 95% in fusion [ 1- 4].
Both methods had a high level of agreement in estimating abortion rate but were markedly below national estimates.
Sequential testing of samples using both methods has a high sensitivity and specificity (Richard W. Steketee, pers. comm).
Both methods showed a high degree of discrepancy in the positivity rates with the combination of direct smears and flotation finding a significantly higher number of parasite stages.
The classification was rather similar by using both methods indicating a higher susceptibility to carbon loss in the following order: soil under Vines (V) > under Olives (O) > under Pine trees (PI) > under Cork Trees (S) > under Pasture (PR) > under Cistus scrub (MC) > under Erica scrub (MB) by using the SL method and V > O > PI > S > MC > MB > PR by using the IR method.
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