Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
The sensitivities of the Trustline kit and the Aupu kit were significantly higher than that of the bacterial methods (p < 0.05).
Those who did return a saliva collection kit were significantly older than those who did not (48.1 vs. 45.0 years, t = -5.2, p <.0001).
In our study, those who returned a kit were significantly older than those who did not, and this difference in age should be acknowledged when generalizing genetic association results to the entire COMPASS sample.
Similar(57)
The proportion of Bacteroidetes extracted by the Stool kit was significantly higher than the Mini kit (paired t test: t11 = −5.94, p = 9.69×10−5).
In the large number of clinical samples used in this study, the sensitivity of the Trustline kit was significantly better than that of the Aupu kit.
Paul metropolitan region that distributed the kits were significantly less likely to fill prescriptions for antibiotics within three days of their visits than patients treated at clinics that did not give out the kits.
In summary, in the univariate statistical analysis immunohistochemical markers including CD20, bcl2, TiA1 and c-kit were significantly different in refractory or early relapse and responders patients and were correlated with the treatment response.
In all instances, treatment with anti-c-Kit was significantly better than that with anti-SCF.
However, in general, the serum and red blood cell folate concentrations measured by these kits are significantly lower than the concentrations obtained from microbiological assays (31, 32), which possibly reflects the higher affinity of the folic acid standard.
The most common of these mutations (D816 V) shows no response to imatinib in vitro (Zermati et al, 2003), while the proliferation of normal mast cells containing wild-type C-KIT was significantly inhibited.
Overall, primary pediatric AML samples with FLT3 or KIT mutations were significantly more sensitive to SU11657 than wild-type AML samples [23].
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