Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
By comparing the brain sizes for those species that are represented in both datasets it is clear that most discrepancies between the two datasets are explained by the size of the bird individuals measured.
Similar(59)
97.6% of the variance of the original dataset was explained by the first two PCs, as shown in the 2-D score plots of PCA results in Figure 2. Frequency band ν1 has the highest weight on the first PC (explaining 81.0% of the variability) while ν2, ν3 and ν4 dominated the second PC (explaining 16.6% of the variability).
Nevertheless, 38% of the variability in the dataset was explained by variables related to site water conditions (Tables 2 and 4).
All the coefficients of the single variables have a significance lower than 10−3; the significance of the whole model is equal to 2.10−6; the adjusted R2 value of the model is equal to 0.74, indicating that 74% of the variance observed in the experimental dataset is explained by this simple model.
For our dataset, 17.1% of the variance of the overall dataset was explained by the fit.
AMOVA tests revealed that a significant amount of genetic variation in the D. galeata dataset was explained by the among-lakes component (14%, see Table 4).
Details of the datasets are explained in [ 1].
The differences in model preference and performance seen between the simulated and the animal datasets can be explained by the noiseless character of the generated TACs.
The features observed in Figs. 8 and 9 suggest that, for the torsion versus PGTA and the torsion versus rocking correlations, the differences between these three datasets can be explained by local soil properties.
The incongruity between human case and vector abundance datasets might be explained by recent (i.e., since 2007) spatial and/or numerical expansion of I. scapularis populations.
This compositional bias toward adenosines in loops was already observed in several datasets, and is explained by the high percentage of unpaired adenosine nucleotides in several structural motifs [ 68].
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