Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
The mean sample collection efficiency was 98% for CO, 99.1% for NO2, 88.7% for O3 and 96.7% for SO2.
The mean sample collection interval for serum was 3 days after exposure (range 1 5 days); for stool and gastric fluid, the mean interval was 4 days after exposure (range 3 6 days).
Similar(58)
The sample included 19 high-risk and 16 control offspring with a mean age at sample collection of 21.89 (standard deviation (SD) 4.04) and 20.44 (SD 2.61) years, respectively.
The control cohort consisted of 335 men and 471 women and the mean age at sample collection was 59 years (range 15 95 years).
The mean ages at sample collection were 65 (range, 38 89) years in the PH group and 56 (range, 27 73) years in the non-PH group (p = 0.001).
The mean day of sample collection was slightly later in patients with prolonged diarrhea than in those with limited symptoms (2.4 ± 1.3 days vs. 1.5 ± 1.1 days; p = 0.045, by t test).
The mean time of sample collection did not differ significantly between RT-PCR positive oRT-PCR positiveients, suggesting that the difference in ortcomes betweenegativetwo groupatients not be explained by the disuggestingin thatdurathen of their symptoms before adifference
The mean age at the sample collection of the cases was 36 years and mean age of controls at interview was 38 years.
Mean delay for blood sample collection was shorter in eastern and northern regions of the country and longer in central and western regions.
For the initial 4500 MI cases and 4500 controls, the mean delay from blood sample collection (with immediate chilling) to sample separation (with immediate freezing) was about 15 min.
The mean age was 39 years, 60% males and 40% females ii) individuals with previous pulmonary TB (n = 15), mean age 40 years, 0% males, 100% females, all had drug-susceptible TB) and iii) clinically healthy individuals (n = 15) with no symptoms of TB at the time of sample collection (mean age 42 years, 20% males, 80% females).
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