Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(1)
This study compares the noise levels obtained by these three methodologies at signalized intersections and roundabouts.
Similar(59)
In recent work, Schwartz and Shackney (2010) proposed bridging the gap between these two methodologies by computationally inferring cell populations from tissue-wide gene expression samples.
The coupling of these two methodologies is realized by a time-splitting method.
A compromise between these two methodologies is represented by the use of data assimilation scheme to include sparse remote estimates of surface fluxes into continuous modelling.
These two methodologies are equally recommended by the European Hypertension Society (ESH) 2007 guidelines [ 19] for the detection of the WCH and MH phenomena.
We compared the prevalence estimates of multimorbidity defined by the three methodologies with the prevalence estimates of common diseases encountered in primary care.
There was no statistically significant difference between the average values obtained by the two methodologies for either refined oils or olive oils.
However, the final list of genes comprised 86 probe sets (74 genes) commonly yielded by the two methodologies which were differentially expressed in LGMD2A compared to unaffected muscle biopsies.
Thus, while some RNA-seq and ChiP-seq targets were in common, there was not strict concordance between targets identified by the two methodologies.
We directly compared the CoNECT dataset (Table S16) with the RNA-seq dataset by Gan et al. (2010) genome-wide and generated a scatter plot of FPKM values produced by the two methodologies.
AMICA1 (#48), MMP9 (#2), TYROBP (#49), SELPG (# 604), LEF1 (#64) were selected as candidate genes to compare the fold over-expression by the two methodologies (# represents fold over-expression relative to B cell based on FPKM data, smaller number indicates higher fold overexpression).
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