Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(5)
The results are also statistically compared, and a significant difference is observed between the SPSO and the LFPSO methods.
The relative abundance of chloroplast amplicons in DNA and RNA clone libraries was compared and a significant decrease was detected (from 63% and 71%to1%and7%d 7%, respectively).
When more than two groups were compared and a significant difference was found, a post hoc Tukey test was performed to determine which groups differ.
The protein patterns of DIDRY and DICTRL were compared and a significant difference in the protein pattern and number of peaks of diabetic patients could be detected between those suffering from dry eye disease or not (P < 0.002).
As depicted in Fig 6, three different doses of vector were compared and a significant inhibition of the tumour growth (p < 0.001, ANOVA) was observed with the 2 highest doses (10iu and 2.5 10iu).
Similar(55)
Analyses of scores of the two groups in the post-test were compared and a statistically significant difference was found between groups in favor of experimental group.
Additionally, different compositions were compared and a ■ indicates significant difference between compositions for statistical significance of P ⩽ 0.05.
The two methods were compared and showed a significant improvement with the more accurate integration approach.
The unmethylated and in vitro methylated regions were compared and showed a significant reduction in the expression of luciferase in transfected HEK 293 cells when all CpG sites were methylated.
There was no significant difference between mPI and BoP when clinical parameters were compared, and there was a significant difference for PPD only in the HP group.
The number of non-synonymous sequence variants in these genes that were unique to either the low or high HDL-C groups was compared and revealed a statistically significant excess of rare mutations among individuals with low HDL-C (20 versus 3 in the low versus high HDL-C groups).
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