Suggestions(2)
Exact(1)
The linear form model gave low value of R 2 (0.8351), a strong indication that the linear form could not represent the experimental data well.
Similar(59)
In contrast, animal models gave low estimates of genetic variances and heritabilities.
However, compared to the dispersion modeling system, the regulatory models give low GLCs due to the neglect of mesoscale circulation and heterogeneous flow in the region of complex terrain, which are analyzed from the structures of wind and temperature.
In contrast, the model of CD gave low R2, though a high adequate precision (7.509) was obtained.
However, Richards model gave unexpectedly low values for growth rates (<0.001 OD units h−1).
Three-phase linear model gave the lowest values for growth rates and lag times, followed by Baranyi, Gompertz, and logistic, in that order, for all three microorganisms.
When comparing the growth rate values given by the different models, three-phase linear model gave the lowest values (0.27 0.30 OD units h−1), followed by Baranyi model (0.28 0.31 OD units h−1), logistic and Gompertz (0.31 0.35 OD units h−1), and Richards model (0.30 0.42 OD units h−1).
For this microorganism, again, the three-phase linear model gave the lowest value for the growth rate (0.10 0.11 OD units h−1), but in this case together with Baranyi model, and again logistic and Gompertz models gave higher values (0.12 0.13 OD units h−1).
But losing 15 pounds would make a big difference, because the men gave low ratings to fashion-model bodies.
The model gives a low probability of a molecule being toxic if its molecular weight is below 370.
However, only a pooled analysis of four studies in the breast cancer subgroup indicated that increased miRNA-205 expression was significantly correlated with enhanced OS (pooled HR=0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91), which was determined using a fixed-effects model given the low heterogeneity among the studies (p=0.199, I=35.5%).
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