Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Similar(60)
The model comparing in-house investigations revealed that the presence of a laboratory within a facility (OR 3.792, 95% CI 0.998 14.557, p=0.052) was also a marginal determinant.
Further results and a computational study show how these different models compare in practice.
In their comparative study it was shown that the unified model has superior performance among all the models compared in their work.
The predicted MET using the theoretical model, with a group constant k, was highly correlated with those using the empirical models compared in the current study.
Figure 11 shows the two models compared in this way.
Models compared in terms of patient level predictions.
We also expand the range of alternative models compared in the reactive task.
Based on prediction quality, there was no difference between the three models compared in this study.
Random effects were thus added to the model, and we implement the four models compared in the simulation study.
Other minor limitations include that the risk-prediction models compared in our study were developed in Caucasian populations, so the validation was also restricted to Caucasians, and thus, the models may not be applicable to other racial or ethnic groups.
Translated to 2009 US dollars, guaiac FOBT costs $1 in one model compared with $59 in another, sigmoidoscopy $43 compared with $622, and colonoscopy $80 compared with $1,570.
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