Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(21)
The sampling approach for the patient record review follows sample size estimations found in the literature [ 46] and is based on the number of indicators used in the checklist (Table 1).
The conditions of DSC were as follows: sample mass, 0.5 mg; heating rate, 5, 10, 15, 20 K/min; and nitrogen atmosphere, 30 mL/min.
Cytopathogenicity was determined by measuring lactate dehydrogenase release as follows: (sample value – control value/total LDH release – control value x 100 =% cytopathogenicity) ([Sissons et al., 2005]).
For this study, the test conditions were as follows: sample diameter: 100 mm; sample thickness: 40 ± 4 mm; Target rise time: 124 ± 4 ms and Mean horizontal deformation: 5 ± 2 μm.
Conditions for the calculation were as follows: sample size 353, conventional border for type I error (0.05), exposure variable present in 15% (biomarker level above 85% percentile), endpoint (successful weaning within 28 days) present in 55% patients in the high-level biomarker group, variance inflation factor of 0.2 and detection limit of hazard ratio in a Cox proportional hazards model of 0.60.
The samples were named as follows: sample PL, where HTT was applied parallel to the sample surface; sample PP, where HTT was applied perpendicular to the surface; sample NF (no-field) annealed without magnetic field; and as-grown sample is named sample AG.
Similar(39)
The order of UV vis absorption intensities was as follows: samples d > e > f > c > b > a.
The production methods used can be described as follows: samples of fresh fishes (Galéoides decadactylus) are scaled and eviscerated.
Prior to analysis, the peptides were desalted (C8 cartridge, Michrom) as follows: Samples were acidified with trifluoroacetic acid (0.5%).
Descriptions of the tasks of the participants, a sample master schedule for participating staff to follow, sample lessons, and an annotated bibliography are included.
Following sample digestion samples were loaded onto the column in 1 ml 7 M HCl + H2O2.
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