Suggestions(5)
Exact(1)
Accordingly, we defined a cut off for the description of true heterogeneity at a defined nucleotide position as ≥30%% i.e. if a variant identified in at least 30%% of the Illumina sequencing reads (after filtering and GenomeView analysis), it is likely that the variant is truly present within the genome of a sub-population of bacilli.
Similar(59)
Therefore, we defined a cut-off (B) based on the expression of gene j among all samples (n).
In order to calculate the prevalence of anemia (AP) for each community, we defined a cut-off value of 11 g/dl which is clinically meaningful, easy to interpret from a public health perspective and gives a good proxy to anemia (see Supplementary Material S1).
Vis à vis the option in the QFT-TB test algorithm, we defined a cut-off for an indeterminate test.
The score varies between 17 and 68, and Vlaeyen et al. (1995b) defined a cut-off of > 37 as showing a high degree of kinesiophobia.
To sort out the interesting clusters, we defined a cut-off at > 0.1 for genomic distance and > 0.7 for GO similarity (see Figure 6).
For each classifier, we defined a cut-off value for the classification in cancer and normal tissues by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity.
Neither the authors of the MERSQI scale nor Sanson-Fisher and colleagues defined a cut-off value to differ methodically "good" studies from "less good studies".
In order to identify these ER-positive patients, we evaluated ER by qRT-PCR and defined a cut-off for positivity based on the binomial repartition of ER score (see Material and methods).
For the practical use of Snail as a tissue biomarker in predicting lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis, we defined a cut-off value of 75% positive nuclear expression for Snail overexpression.
We defined a cut-off score for the promoter motif using the highest scores of the motif in each of the promoters of expressed genes strongly and weakly bound by MSL, such that the motif would be present in only 5% of the expressed, weakly bound genes.
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