Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(4)
Progression of CAC was defined as a change in square root transformed CVS of ≥2.5 (19).
Individuals were categorized as progressors (n = 337) if the change in square root CVS was ≥2.5 and as nonprogressors (n = 623) if change in square root CVS was <2.5.
The outcome in linear regression analyses was the change in square root transformed CAC volume over the 6 year follow up period.
CAC progression was defined as a change in square root CAC volume ≥ 2.5, as this difference was determined to be < 1% likely to be due to measurement error, based on the two scans that were completed within 5 minutes of one another [ 16].
Similar(56)
The purpose of this study is to gain insights to the dynamic changes of ATR-WGS during cold start and when subjected to a sudden change in square-pulse flow rate.
Overall, 157 (46.4%) participants had significant CAC progression (change in square-root volume score ≥2.5 mm) over the 4.5 years of follow-up.
A modification value corresponds to the expected change in Chi square value (model fit) if certain parameter restrictions (e.g., uncorrelated measurement errors) are relaxed.
The binding is monitored by following the change in the square wave voltammetry (SWV) reduction peak signal of ferrocyanide/ferricyanide redox couple due to the removal of the negatively charged aptamers from the surface upon protein binding.
For logistic regression analyses, CAC progression was defined as a change in the square root transformed CAC volume ≥ 2.5 over the 6 year period of follow-up, which corresponds to a change in CAC volume from 0 to ≥ 6.25 among participants initially free from CAC.
We also defined a percent change in mean square error (PCMSE) as used by de Nazelle et al. (2010), where the results correspond to the percent increased or decreased estimation accuracy of the O3 concentration prediction based on the LUR or BME kriging models compared with corresponding predictions based on the BME-LUR.
Although, the change in chi-square value was significant for Model 2 and 6, in both cases, the Model was found to have good fit and the change in the CFI was less than 0.01.
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