Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(5)
Chi square comparison between saline and GTN-treated groups of only CGRP-immunopositive and -immunonegative neurons showed a significant increase after GTN compared to saline pretretment (p = 0.0044), though there was no significant difference in the samples of double CGRP- and sGC-immunopositive neurons (p = 0.7409) (Figure 7C).
Thus, there is a significant difference in the samples between the two studies.
The second key difference in the samples is related to their reports of current and previous treatment for emotional issues.
This behavior may not happen for different reasons: i) the conditions do not present differences in expression for the genes in that window, this is the trivial case when the means are indeed the same; ii) the difference in the samples causes some genes to increase and others to decrease their expression, what should be expected in case the window randomly mixes genes.
The main difference in the samples has to do with geographic location for mothers in the subsample: in the main sample, 39percentt of daughters live in urban areas and 6percentt are from Frontier governorates, but only 32percentt of observations in the restricted sample are in urban areas and all girls from Frontier governorates are excluded.
Similar(55)
The findings of this study could be different because of the difference in the sample population.
There is a large difference in the sample sizes (n).
This difference in similarity may be due to the difference in the sample origin.
An * indicates a significant difference in the sample mean at the 5%% level between the normal-weight group and the BMI classification group of interest.
The cause for the differences seen between the two studies may underlie difference in the sampling methods because similar anesthetic regimens were used.
Possible explanations include the difference in the sample size or the FOT method.
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