Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Mean expression estimates for immune function transcripts most often had higher standard errors that led to higher p-values using the PAXgene™ system.
As the true expression levels are unknown, we used a long run of MCMC as the ground truth for mean expression estimates.
Similar(58)
For each method, we compute the ratio between the mean expression estimate of FP transcripts and the mean expression estimate of TP transcripts (FP ¯ / TP ¯ ).
Mean posterior expression estimates for each gene were log2 transformed.
For the IFM dataset, the Pearson correlation coefficient for the mean of gene expression estimates across the samples of dChip and aroma.affymetrix normalized data is 0.86 (12192 genes; p < 2.2e-16 2.2e-16e correlandon for DES scores is 0.81 (10960 genes; p < 2.2e-16).
Novak et al. suggested characterization of dispersion patterns of Affymetrix arrays with the method of consecutive sampling [ 23], which uses groups of genes with close mean expressions to estimate the standard deviations; similar approach was independently proposed by Baldi and Long [ 24] and Kamb and Ramaswami [ 25].
Mean expression levels were estimated by comparison with serial dilutions of homogenates from age-matched control mice and represented as percentages relative to control mice.
A 4×3 analysis of variance linear model was fitted to the comparisons to estimate the mean expression values and differentially expressed genes identified by calculation of moderated t-statistic, B statistic, false discovery rate and raw P-value for each comparison of interest.
Estimated mean expression profiles μ ^, covariance matrices Σ ^ and weights π ^ for the four subgroups, as estimated from the training set.
As both methods gave similar estimates, only the DART-PCR approach estimates from mean expression levels were reported.
A z-statistic z g, i, the effect size measurement, was calculated to be the ratio of the estimated mean expression differences to its standard error.
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