Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(8)
Though there was no statistically significant difference in median GM values between the BW and BAL samples with positive results (median OD index of 1.3 for the BW samples vs 3.5 for the BAL samples, P = 0.08), there was a higher number of positive GM results (OD index cut-off of 0.5) only detectable by BW (54.1 %) compared to those detectable only by BAL (9.3 %, P < 0.0001).
During storage, crystal transformation in MG and structural reorganization in waxes (PW and BW) samples showed a gradual decrease and increase in hardness, respectively.
Ninety-six paired (BAL and BW) samples from 85 patients were included.
Only patients who had concurrent paired BAL and BW samples separately tested for GM antigen during the same procedure were included.
Among 43 positive samples, using a GM cut-off of 0.5, 39 (90.5 %) were positive in BW samples whereas 12 (29.3 %) were positive in BAL samples.
Of the 11 negative serum GM results, four were positive by BW samples alone, and one was positive by BAL sample alone; the remainder were negative by both BAL and BW.
Similar(52)
The total BW sample volume is processed.
Of the total four culture-positive BAL samples, one yielded aspergillus fumigatus (with a GM of ≥1 from both BAL and BW), and three yielded penicillium species, of which only one had a positive GM >0.5 from BW sample alone.
In the hierarchical clustering, the PCB 153 treated samples are well separated from the control samples, and the dose groups are co- clustered except one (2 mg/kg BW) sample that was grouped with the lowest dose group.
Indeed, more sophisticated technologies for use in BW sampling, biological detection, biological viability analysis, and enumeration may be necessary for compliance testing at the USCG phase 2 standard level.
The median level of GM in BW (0.28) samples was significantly higher than in BAL (0.20) samples among 53 samples with negative results (P = 0.001).
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