Suggestions(5)
Exact(32)
Table 3 shows that although codon bias was evident across all five groups (i.e., GC3 was elevated above both GC i and GC f), it was most highly skewed in groups 0 and 1. Genes in groups 0 and 1 showed the highest levels of GC3 and the most extreme degrees of codon bias.
The percentage GC content of each calculated bin (GC i, where i stands for individual bins) was computed for GC normalization.
CNR i was further normalized based on the GC content of each bin (GC i) to yield the GC-normalized CN ratios (nCNR i).
Three DFA models were developed that achieved excellent discrimination between the subpopulations: (i) GC vs benign gastric conditions, among all the patients (89% sensitivity; 90% specificity); (ii) early stage GC (I and II) vs late stage (III and IV), among GC patients (89% sensitivity; 94% specificity); and (iii) ulcer vs less severe, among benign conditions (84% sensitivity; 87% specificity).
The phylogenetic tree showed that the previously sequenced strains and all of the 7 MDR clinical isolates belonging to GC II formed a clade, while strains AB307-0294, and, AB00570057, which belong to GC I, grouped together.
Then … GC: I told everyone at the gig that you didn't want to know the result.
Similar(28)
9 classify GC cases into three phenotypes: G-type GC, I-type GC and GI-type GC.
b P < 0.05 compared with GC-I, use of GC.
We extend these data by demonstrating higher levels of disease activity in the postpartum period in GC treated patients in the GC-I group, despite the more frequent use of NSAIDs.
The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2C, indicate that GC treated patients in the GC-I group had a significantly higher AUC of DAS28 in the whole postpartum period (that is, up to 26 weeks), than did patients in the GC-S group (P = 0.046).
GC-S patients could more frequently reduce the daily needed GC dose during pregnancy than could the GC-I patients, possibly reflecting higher GC sensitivity to the pregnancy-related increase in cortisol in GC-S patients, although this was not statistically significant (n = 7, 29.2% versus n = 1, 7.7%; P = 0.130).
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