Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(9)
Because we did not randomize women into the different computer-assisted methods, we cannot rule out selection bias as a threat to the validity of the findings.
Because of the sampling technique used (see MATERIALS AND METHODS), we cannot reject the hypothesis that infected specimens used could corresponded to photophilic individuals.
Given our analytical methods, we cannot definitively say that RSV is an independent cause of alveolar pneumonia, which is typically considered to have a bacterial cause.
In the absence of unbiased histological methods, we cannot demonstrate the relatively high local water content, which might be one potential origin for the hyperintense T2/FLAIR signal in periventricular areas as discussed above.
However, even though there is no evidence for this in the RNA-Seq data (see also in Methods) we cannot completely exclude minor contributions from sexual stages (macrogametes, microgametes) to the RNA pool selected for analysis.
Since the effects of dominant negative Cdc42N17 could not be studied due to technical difficulties (see Materials and methods), we cannot exclude any contribution of Cdc42 in this process.
Similar(51)
Since a response rate cannot be determined with this method, we cannot account for an individual's inherent interest or willingness to participate.
Without such a method, we cannot develop a reliable picture, akin to that for R&D spending, on the impact of design spending on company performance.
Although the ASVM is an active learning method, we cannot get samples actively in the first stage, and so we get them completely at random.
Hence, we can conclude that when we cannot find a mutually disjoint cover set with exactly covers using the sensor partitioning method, we cannot be sure we have an optimal solution.
Remark 4 Due to the restriction of our method, we cannot get the blow-up result for q > ( p − 1 ) N + p N − p, when N > p. We conjecture that Theorem 1 will hold for all q > p − 1 ≥ 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