Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
We reached the best accuracies when three out of the eight methods, namely Phobius, Scampi-single and TMHMM were used for filtering, and at least two of these three methods predicted at least one membrane region (Additional file 2).
Similar(59)
Accordingly, we first tested how well each of the methods predicted the repression of mRNAs with at least one canonical 7 8 nt 3′-UTR site.
Our methods predicts terms at a median level of 10 for cellular component, 8 for biological process, and 6 for molecular function.
Thus, our evaluation method predicted tableting failure at the commercial scale.
Setting the false positive rate at 5%, our method predicted NAD- and FAD-binding sites at true positive rates of 67.1% and 68.4%, respectively.
There is a lack of methods to predict, at a reasonable cost, biomechanical load on an operator performing a task not yet observable on a product and in a workplace not yet existing.
Of the nine unmatched samples, our method predicted that eight were cross-contaminated at ratios between 1 6 and 1 1.
Our method predicts spectral energies well at high frequencies unlike the existing methods that are limited to low frequencies and/or lightly damped case.
It is often the case that the two methods produce very different causality spectra, so selecting the correct method is essential, in many instances the AR method predicts a causal influence at the driving frequency, yet the harmonic method does not.
At present, our method predicts protein secondary structures and shape strings at 83.7% Q3 accuracy and 71.2% Q8 (8-state shape strings) accuracy respectively, based on a non-redundant set of PDB culling at 30% sequence identity level, evaluated by a leave-one-out cross-validation.
The Kaplan method: Predict the answer before looking at the options; eliminate answers you know are wrong; plug in the remaining choices; select the best one.
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