Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
The effects of zoom focus methods vary with zoom scale levels regardless of the age groups.
Processing methods vary with regard to diverse technologies and strategies used and types of tissue processed.
Invitation methods vary with regions (see figure 1), with professionals and patients identifying issues around both modalities that could affect uptake.
It is evident that the sensitivities of the methods vary, with radiography being the most sensitive of the three for all joint groups.
The data collection and calculation methods vary with respect to the time-points, bladder voiding, dose assessment after the last data point and the way the effective dose was calculated.
Methods vary with what you want to emphasize, what your team works well with, and different strategies.
Similar(54)
(a) Scenario 1; (b) scenario 2. From the p coalescing plots in Figure 5, it was clear that the performances of all the methods varied with the changing of the scenario and the scenario parameter.
Statistical methods varied with study design.
Sensitivity analyses methods varied with some studies using one-way [ 10, 11, 25, 26, 27], others using probabilistic tests [ 28– 30] and a few using both [ 31].
The MOE from Dischinger's method varies with the concrete creep function.
The score selection thresholds for each method varied with the datasets (Surflex-dock: 6.73 12.83, ICM: −52.17 to −22.69, Autodock Vina: −12.10 to −9.00).
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