Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(9)
Although the alignment counts differ, because of slight differences between the tools in the settings or algorithms, the overall trend is similar.
We use two different base counts for normalization, to reflect fundamental differences between the tools with respect to selective use of markers: the first count is the total number of markers present in the SBF as generated by the tool, denoted E(X), while the second is the total number of markers present in the genome within the coordinates of the generated blocks, denoted E(X′).
The differences between the tools are discussed and the current situation within the tools is critically analysed.
Nevertheless, several differences between the tools are worthy of consideration in this context.
When using high-quality raw data and liberal alignment criteria, the differences between the tools were relatively small.
There were considerable differences between the tools regarding the force needed for tendon penetration and the size of the hole created.
Similar(51)
The difference between the tools in predictive ability for MACE was highly significant (p = 0.0002).
There is a real difference between the tools, digital or physical, which empower us with new actions, and the tools which merely make existing actions easier.
Utilizing the chi-square test to compare the AUC for the TIMI, Goldman and HFA tools, the difference between the tools in terms of predictive ability for MACE was found to be highly significant (chi2, N = 276, p <0.0001).
Area under the curve (AUC) of the HFA, TIMI RS and Goldman tools for the endpoint of MACE was 0.54, 0.71 and 0.67, respectively, with the difference between the tools in predictive ability for MACE being highly significant [chi2 (3) = 67.21, N = 276, p < 0.0001].
Although it is possible that there will be more positive matches among these results, the overall difference between the tools in the context of our experiments is likely to have only a minor impact on recall.
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