Ai Feedback
Exact(4)
The median intrabatch coefficient of variation (CV) was 6 (range, 3 16) and the median interbatch CV was 37 (range, 17 165).
Based on the masked quality control samples provided by each cohort, the median interbatch coefficient of variation was 13.2% (range: 4.8%–17.0%), and the median intrabatch coefficient of variation was 9.9% (range: 3.8%–16.4%).
For all cohorts except the Nurses Health Studyy, the median intrabatch coefficient of variation was 9.9% (range: 3.8%–16.4%), and the median interbatch coefficient of variation was 13.2% (range: 4.8%–17.0%).
The median interbatch coefficient of variation for the cohort quality control samples was 13.2% (range: 4.8%–17.0%); the median intrabatch coefficient of variation for the cohort quality control samples was 9.9% (range: 3.8%–16.4%).
Similar(56)
The median inter- and intrabatch coefficient of variation percentages for the cohort quality control samples were 13.2% (range, 4.8%–17.0%) and 9.9% (range, 3.8%–16.4%), respectively.
The mean intrabatch coefficients of variation were 5.1% for IGF1 and 6.1% for IGFBP3.
Based on these external QC samples, within-batch precision [expressed as the intrabatch coefficient of variation (CV%)] was 2.71% for DDT and 3.01% for DDE.
For the VDPP samples, the interbatch and intrabatch coefficient of variation percentages for NIST level 1 samples were 12.7% and 9.3%, respectively, and for NIST level 2 samples, they were 13.6% and 11.0%, respectively.
Intrabatch coefficients of variation (CV) were < 10 for most analytes (median 7; range, 4 21; see Supplemental Material, Table 1, available online (doi 10.1289/ehp.0800359. S1 via http://dx.doi.org/).org/
Intrabatch coefficients of variation (CVs) were 4%to10%0%, and interbatch CVs were 6%to16%6%to16%
Inter- and intrabatch coefficients of variation for NIST level-1 samples were 12.7% and 9.3%, respectively; inter- and intrabatch coefficients of variation for NIST level-2 samples were 13.6% and 11.0%, respectively.
Related(1)
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