Ai Feedback
Exact(5)
Ri-TMS mapping was compared to the corresponding fMRI studies.
The efficacy of mapping was compared by analyzing three combinations of parameters: mismatch cost, insertion cost, deletion cost, matching length and similarity.
The sequences of genes and unigenes thus obtained, as well as those of the predicted carnation genes, were mapped onto the KEGG reference pathways by BLAST searches against genes in the KEGG database with E-value cutoff of 1 E–10, length coverage ≥25% and identity ≥50%, and the status of mapping was compared among the four plant species.
When Ri-TMS mapping was compared to the corresponding fMRI studies, the areas of maximal MEP response for the three muscles localized within the "finger tapping -activated areas by fMRI in four of five patapping -activatedlthy volunteer (compareasabye 1).
Biparental mapping was compared with multiparental mapping in different subsets of families (AB, ABC, ABCD, and ABCDE) using both a GWAS approach, which fit each QTL as a single effect across all families, and using a joint linkage approach, which fit QTL effects as nested within families.
Similar(55)
The genetic correlates of these measures obtained with neurological mutants and gene mapping are compared.
Finally, cut differences detected by Optical Mapping were compared to published SNPs.
For instance, Caenorhabditis briggsae chromosomes reconstructed by SNP-based genetic mapping were compared with the Caenorhabditis elegans genome.
The expected flow net map was compared with actual flow net map constructed using measured depth to water values in four boreholes drilled by private sector (Table 2).
The resulting map was compared to US Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/) plot data for evaluation of mapped ACD precision.
The combination of both maps was compared to the distribution of Special Protected Areas and validated by local experts to identify prediction errors or gaps.
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