Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
95% Confidence intervals not available for data at low and high exposure.
95% Confidence intervals not available for data at low, medium and high exposure.
Similar(58)
†Credible interval not available for all studies.
For example, the three year cumulative incidence of grade III+ for positive/positive, negative/positive, positive/negative, and negative/negative was 11.3% (7.0% to 15.6%), 1.6% (−0.6% to 38.0%), 0% (confidence interval not available), and 0.3% (0.01% to 0.6%), respectively.
If 3 min sampling intervals were not available at baseline (supine), the patient was excluded entirely from the study and if 3 min sampling intervals in the sitting or standing positions were not obtainable due to OI or artefacts, data for that particular patient and time point were excluded.
If the mappable intervals are not available at all, then they need to be computed based on the reference genome.
When confidence intervals were not available, a ±25% variation was applied to the base-case parameters (Table 1).
Confidence intervals were not available in these studies, but knowing the mean and SD, we could compute the CI making it possible to compare the data.
Cronbach's alphas for the U.S. sample were combined from two different sources: aSquires et al. [ 3] (second edition) and bSquires et al. [ 18] (third edition) user's guides as the coefficients for the 42- and 54-month intervals were not available in the second edition.
Correlations for the U.S. sample were combined from two different sources: aSquires et al. [ 3] (second edition) and bSquires et al. [ 18] (third edition) user's guides as the coefficients for the 42- and 54-month intervals were not available in the second edition.
The parameters were varied over their 95%% confidence intervals or decreased and increased by 20%% if a confidence interval was not available (see Tables 1, 2 and Table S3 in the ESM).
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