Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed that the observed distribution deviates from the random distribution (P = 6 × 10-13).
We thus assessed whether the distribution of the p-values for each test deviates from the random distribution for any of the COGs using a U-test.
Similar(56)
The extent to which the ORF distributions deviate from the random expectation could serve as a metric for predicting the coding content of genomes [5].
Furthermore, in the three genomes examined, these distributions strongly deviate from the random expectation (p < 10-20).
The null hypothesis that the true data do not significantly deviate from the random distribution is rejected with a p-value of 2e-16.
However, the size distribution clearly deviated from the random or flat distribution expected in the absence of sRNA biogenesis (Fig. 3).
To estimate whether the biological signal deviated from the random model, we counted how many times a larger or lower signal, depending on the under- or overrepresentation of evolutionary events, was found in the random set.
Using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, the significance of the real interaction that deviated from the random background was estimated and is shown in Additional file 1: Figure S2.
To further test for associations between positive selection and gene role category, we thus assessed, for each of the role categories, whether the distribution of the p-values for each positive selection test deviated from the random distribution, using the non-parametric U-test.
For τ<30 min, cell movement deviates significantly from the random walk expectation and is essentially ballistic, i.e., the cells are on average moving in a straight line with constant velocity.
While we observed that the "random walk" algorithm [20] and a variant of the celebrated Barabàsi-Albert (preferential attachment) model [22] showed similar uncorrelated results at the farthest separation (m=5), correlations in the Advogato network deviated substantially from the random models for m<5.
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