Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Similar(60)
In interpreting hypothesis-testing results, the type I error level was set at 0.05, a common practice for research studies like this.
Our approach has the advantage that the selected hypothesis will always be easy to interpret, provided that interpretable hypotheses are proposed a priori.
The results can therefore only be interpreted as hypothesis generating.
Results are therefore to be interpreted as hypothesis generating.
Given these weaknesses, our correlative/translational data should be interpreted as hypothesis generating.
Statistical analysis was explorative; hence results of statistical tests are not interpreted as hypothesis testing.
47 Identified interactions should be interpreted as hypothesis generating and replication sought in other studies, and meta-analyses.
The last finding should be interpreted as hypothesis generating, as it was based on small numbers and could be a chance finding.
The data should be therefore interpreted as hypothesis generating but not proof of additional value of CGM in the routine chest pain unit care so far.
Though this is consistent with KIM-1 having potential as a clinically useful biomarker, these data should be interpreted as hypothesis generating.
Secondary outcomes can also be tested, but the results from such tests will be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than confirmatory.
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