Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Similar(60)
According to Table 1, it is evident that extraction factors in acidic M were superior to W and AA, especially for phenolic compounds (EFAA1, EFW1, EFM1) compared with flavonoid derivatives (EFAA2, EFW2, EFM2).
Treatment with metformin plus rosiglitazone (M+R) was superior to metformin alone (M) in preventing loss of glycemic control in youth with type 2 diabetes (2).
Indeed, at sixteen years old, Bolt had reached times that Johnson did not register until he was twenty, and Bolt's 200 m time was superior to Maurice Greene's season's best that year.
Statistically, HistologyEMT had a better prognostic stratification power than T and N stages; however, in cohort 2, the power of M substage was superior.
The results showed that the D-M model was superior to other thermodynamic models in the prediction of CO2 loading data with average absolute relative deviations (AARDs) of 2.89%, 3.59%, 1.76%, and 2.3% for DEEA, 1DMA2P, DEAB, and 1DEA2P solutions, respectively.
It remains an open question whether the improved prognostic value can actually be related to a linear correlation between SUR and K m which is superior to that between SUV and K m.
Electroporation-assisted DNA delivery using 8 pulses, 600 V/cm, 5 ms, 1 Hz was superior to other methods and resulted in 22% increase in fluorescence intensity in the tumors up to 6 days post-transfection, compared to the non-transfected area in granulation tissue.
The separation of the two sample groups with one 3 min washing step using 4 M urea hydrogen peroxide was superior to three 5 min washing steps with 5 M urea (Table 1, Figure 1).
Regarding glycemic control, M+R was superior to M (P = 0.006); M+L was intermediate but not different from M (10).
Almost half of the cohort (n = 319, 45.6%) reached the primary outcome after an average follow-up duration of 3.9 years (range, 2 6.5 years); the M+R combination was superior to M (P = 0.006), and M+L was intermediate but not different from M or M+R (2).
M+R was superior to M (failure rates 38.6 and 51.7%, respectively; P = 0.006), and M+L was intermediate (46.6%) but not different from M (11).
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