Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(5)
Combination markers were ranked by the estimated sensitivity at 98% specificity.
For each cancer type, all markers were ranked according to the 5-fold cross-validation performance on the training dataset.
Individual markers were ranked by their sensitivity at high specificity in comparing cases to all controls (Healthy Controls, Surgical Benigns and Surgical Normals).
In Fig. 4C, the markers were ranked according to their discriminative power on the Netherlands set, and their mean absolute <img src="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=info?doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008161.e081.PNG" class= inline-graphic"/> -scores were computed using the USA dataset.
The markers were ranked according to their information content, reproducibility, ease of scoring, and independent segregation.
Similar(55)
The markers are ranked in the decreasing order of <img src="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=info?doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013734.e134.PNG" class= inline-graphic"/> 's.
Markers are ranked in accordance with the map order.
These approaches operate by generating a value for each marker according to their degree of correlation with a given phenotype (class label), and then markers are ranked.
The most frequent marker was ranked as 1st, the second most frequent marker was ranked as 2nd, and so forth.
In order to refine the number of predicted markers, they were ranked according to their score (see Materials and methods for details, Identification of marker genes).
To select subsets of markers, all 42,576 SNP were ranked by their absolute value of b ^.
More suggestions(15)
markers were assigned
markers were characterized
markers were characterised
markers were classed
markers were ascertained
markers were selected
markers were related
markers were fastened
markers were increased
markers were observed
markers were investigated
markers were sorted
markers were determined
markers were considered
markers were designed
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