Ai Feedback
Exact(9)
In order to evaluate our secondary outcome measures, we compared hospital and ICU mortality and length of stay between ED patients at risk who developed ALI and those who did not.
To these measures we compared our own four measures: two word frequency indices (SUBTL_logW and SUBTL_logW-CD) and two character frequency indices (SUBTL_logCHR, and SUBTL_logCHR-CD).
As validation measures we compared automatically obtained time-intensity curves to manually acquired ones before and after registration.
For all measures, we compared the results from the baseline and implementation periods by using Fisher's exact test.
In all T1-derived measures, we compared the values across all the segments using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Bonferroni adjustment.
As with the psychophysical measures, we compared prediction accuracies using two criteria for cue fusion: DM > D-M (criterion 1) and DM > √ (D+M) (criterion 2).
Similar(51)
Thirdly, unlike most former studies that only aim to minimise statistical error measures, we compare this approach with financially more relevant risk-adjusted objective functions.
In order to provide illustrative measures, we compare the energy consumption using cooperative communication between MTs on SR links to the energy consumption without cooperation (i.e. using direct LR to BS/AP).
In this step, we excluded the two multivariate composite "Arkansas" measures – we compare these later.
Since CS is the best sequence variability measure, we compared WCN-CS and RSAT-CS correlations protein-by-protein.
As a primary outcome measure, we compared the before-after difference in lipid levels between both groups.
Related(18)
requirements we compared
methodologies we compared
arrangements we compared
interventions we compared
estimates we compared
mechanisms we compared
assessment we compared
procedure we compared
evaluate we compared
means we compared
measures we set
measures we succeeded
measures we did
measures we put
measures we were
measures we had
measures we believed
manner we compared
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