Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
Laboratories evaluated the kits for sensitivity and specificity by using the evaluation panel.
Similar(59)
Since none of the normalised samples exactly matched Illumina's recommended 2.5 ng/μl for the Nextera kit, we evaluated the kit's performance on a range of concentrations spanning from 1.5 to 3.4 ng/μl.
Other considerations we used in evaluating the kits were ease of use, measured by the number of steps involved in the protocol and cost of each labeling reaction (Table 2).
A total of 951 samples from six populations were typed to evaluate the kit and examine concordance for 17 of the loci that are in common with those that can be typed using the AmpFlSTR® Yfiler™ kit (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA).
In this study, we evaluated the RASKET KIT to detect forty-eight kinds of RAS amino acid mutations in CRC patients.
We evaluated the MEBGENTM RASKET KIT (RASKET KIT), a multiplex assay using PCR-reverse sequence specific oligonucleotide and xMAP® technology to concurrently detect exon 2, 3, and 4 RAS mutations in a short turnaround time (4.5 h/96-specimens).
In our study, we evaluated the Carba-R kit from Cepheid GeneXpert, which is a rapid, and a comprehensive test that detects and differentiates the most prevalent carbapenemases (KPC, NDM, VIM, OXA-48 and IMP-1) is important for a successful infection control program.
There were three clinicians evaluating the test kits.
With both issues in mind, we evaluated the use of 3 kits prior to library preparation to remove inconsistencies between samples.
We further evaluated the performance of this kit in terms of linearity of yield and within-laboratory reproducibility (intermediate precision).
This study evaluated the role of c-KIT in canine GISTs; specifically, we investigated activating mutations in exons 8, 9, 11, 13, and 17 of c-KIT and exons 12, 14, and 18 of platelet-derived growth factor receptor, alpha polypeptide (PDGFRA), all of which have been implicated in human GISTs.
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