Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(8)
The mean gene score overall was 16.06 (SD 2.58), and the median was 16 (interquartile range 14 18).
Interestingly, the mean gene score of 16.45 among T2DM cases at baseline (prevalent cases) and the gene score among subjects who developed incident T2DM (16.47) are remarkably similar.
We observed significant variation in the mean gene score between ethnicities, by categories of dyglycemia, and among individuals who reported a family history of T2DM.
The mean gene score in those with no family history of T2DM was 16.02 (SE 0.03), whereas in those with one parent with a history of T2DM mean gene score was 16.19 (SE 0.04) and among those with two parents with T2DM it was 16.32 (SE 0.08; P trend = 0.0004) when adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity (Fig. 1).
Independent sample t-test results showed a significance difference of mean gene score between cases and controls (2.99 ± 1.36 in cases versus 2.25 ± 1.25 in controls, p = 3.16 × 10−9).
To confirm this, we repeated the simulation with the GSA P-value calculated according to Equation (6), with the test statistic taken as the mean gene score, and observed the expected Type I error of ∼5%, whereas the original Type I error for this statistic also exceeded 5%.
Similar(52)
However, the mean gene activity score did not differ between the two groups [1.33 (SD 0.50) vs. 1.28 (SD 0.752)].
The mean gene count score was 21.1 (SD 2.6) in people with type 2 diabetes and 20.5 (2.7) in those without type 2 diabetes (web table K).
It is to calculate the arithmetic mean of duplicate gene scores as a representative score of a certain gene.
For a gene set G, the method calculates the test statistic (gene set score) S as, preferably, the maxmean statistic Smax (Table 1); however, simpler choices are also considered (such as the mean of individual gene scores in G, essentially as in the Q1 statistic).
For the mean gene count per NB-LRR tandem array, Aethionema scores highest.
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