Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(30)
Tool failure modes and wear mechanisms for both tools were examined at various cutting conditions.
The localized flank wear (VB) was found to be the predominant tool wear for both tools A and B. At VB close to 0.3 mm, a brittle fracture (cracking, flaking and chipping) was noted, a plastic deformation was significantly observed and a phenomenon of coating delamination was noticed.
Sensitivity and specificity were slightly higher for both tools in the present study.
This is the same approach adopted by the NCL Validator (actually, the language files currently being used are also the same for both tools).
The number of geocoded addresses was within the limit of 2500 instances per day for both tools; see google-sheets_ggmap_geocoded.csv for their outputs.
"It looks like a hand good for both tools and climbing".
Similar(30)
This ensures consistent behavior for users of both tools.
We selected matching items from both tools for correlation, as detailed in our Methods.
We refer to an exact match when the annotations from both software tools are exactly equivalent given the annotation terms used by the two tools, for example both tools annotate a variant as frameshift.
As before, for the genes both tools could analyze, IUTA performed slightly better than Cuffdiff2.
We also discuss our experience with both tools for this drug-safety systematic review.
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