Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
That is, no manifestly substrate effect is displayed here.
This effect is displayed by a reduction of the mean bubble size as well as a narrower bubble size distribution in a magnetic field.
This effect is displayed in waveforms in Fig. 3.
Nevertheless, the gene dosage effect is displayed in two completely different ways in higher plants.
The corresponding partial GLMM effect is displayed in Figure 4B.
The effect of contrast was significant (b = 0.71, SE = 0.04, z = 17.83, P < 0.001), and the corresponding partial GLMM effect is displayed in Figure 4C.
Similar(54)
This effect was displayed as a miniscule caffeine-induced [Ca2+]i transient (Figure 5C, middle panel), that was completely omitted in the subsequent caffeine puff (n = 7; Figure 5C, lower panel).
The inhibitory effect was displayed in a dose-dependent manner.
The fenofibrate effect was displayed graphically by a log log scatter plot of IAUC for TG and a semilog scatter plot of apoB48 IAUC versus day of study fasting TG, with separate regression lines for the placebo and fenofibrate groups.
The empirical type I error rates and powers of the test of group effect are displayed in Table 3 in which the empirical type I error rates are the values of the first rows where β 1 = β 2 = 0 and the other rows, where β 1 > 0 and β 2 > 0, display the empirical powers.
The resulting final model after elimination of most interactions and some fixed effects is displayed in Tables 6 and 7. NP-Batt is still the most significant predictor (t = 22.9, P < 0.0001) with a regression coefficient of 1.00.
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