Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(7)
Replacing in (14) P S, DF 1 ( k ) = ( 2 b S, DF 1 ( k ) − 1 ) / η S, R ( k ) and P R, DF 1 ( k ) = ( 2 b R, DF 1 ( k ) − 1 ) / η R, D ( k ), we obtain an equivalent convex optimization problem, whose variables are b S, DF 1 ( k ) and b R, DF 1 ( k ), with k ∈ K on.
Df(1 Exel6223, which disrupts the tw gene, is referred to as Df(1).
There were significant differences between tw/tw and tw/+, and between tw/Df(1) and tw/+ or Df(1)/+ (each p<0.001, Tukey test) (Fig. 1F).
Whole brain metabolism showed a significant cue by gender interaction effect (df 1, 24 p<0.05).
Df(1)52 removes roX2 and nearby essential genes.
However, the mean pain was higher at Session 1 compared to Session 2 (session: df 1, F 9.9, P <0.01, pre/post: df 1, F 2.2 P 0.13, interaction: df 1, F 2.4, P 0.11).
Similar(53)
We found no evidence that instructor gender moderated any of these participation patterns (volunteer: χ2 = 0.34, df = 1, p = 0.56; student questions: χ2 = 0, df = 1, p = 1).
Clinical depression was highly significantly associated with child's aggressive behavior (X2 = 37.3, df = 1, P < 0.0001), deficient prosocial behavior (X2 = 9.4, df = 1, P < 0.002), and deficient planful behavior (X2 = 5.1, df = 1, P < 0.002).
Similarly, group × word interaction effects on behavioral responses were not statistically significant (accuracy: p = 0.93, F = 0.009, DF = 1; RT: p = 0.66, F = 0.19, DF = 1).
Differences in performance (accuracy and reaction time, RT) during the DW task were not statistically significant, either between groups (cocaine subjects vs. controls; accuracy: p = 0.55, F = 0.36, DF = 1; RT: p = 0.18, F = 1.89, DF = 1; repeated measures ANOVA) or between words ("Neutral" vs. "Drug"; accuracy: p = 0.64, F = 0.22, DF = 1; RT: p = 0.39, F = 0.77, DF = 1, Fig. 3).
L showed highly significant quadratic polynomial regression coefficients in both the alpha (χ = 28.6, df = 1, p < 10−7) and beta band (χ = 18.2, df = 1, p < .0001).0001
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