Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(4)
Differences between the materials were statistically marginally significant (P = 0.05).
The differences between the materials were statistically not significant.
Among the FS specimens, CGIC had the highest SBS value of all the underlying materials tested; however, none of the differences in SBS values for any of the underlying materials were statistically significant (P > 0.05).
Whereas differences regarding sensory disturbance between T1 and T3 were statistically significant (P = 0.04), the variances in the outcome between the materials were statistically not significant (Tables 3 and 4).
Similar(56)
Microstructural features of the material are statistically characterized for the generation of synthetically representative volume element (RVE) models of the microstructure.
Surface material was statistically significant in the univariable analysis, but not in the final model for MRSA contamination.
> Twenty-three variant loci (6 in TLR2 and 17 in TLR4) were shared by all the three populations; allele frequency differences among the populations at each of the 20 loci (supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online) were statistically nonsignificant (P > 0.05).
Carbon degradation rate constants among different organic materials were found statistically similar at the temperature of 30, 35, and 40 °C, while differences were observed at 25, 45, and 50 °C.
The increase in lens thickness (supplementary material Fig. S1E) and vitreous chamber depth (supplementary material Fig. S1F) were statistically significant in minus-lens-treated WT eyes after 4 weeks of induction (P<0.06 at 2 weeks induction; P<0.05 at 4 weeks induction; P<0.01 at 6 weeks induction; n=50) compared with contralateral eyes.
Individual materials' effects on concrete strength were statistically quantified at different curing ages using the best-fit models.
All but one (chimpanzee testis) were statistically significant (alpha = 0.05; supplementary table S3, Supplementary Material online).
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