Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(4)
The model group displayed significantly higher levels of Smad3 (P < 0.01), TGFβ1 (P < 0.05), and TGFβR-I (P < 0.01), and notably lower levels of Smad7 (P < 0.01) when compared to levels measured in the control group.
Compared to the structural integrity of the lung tissue from the control group, the lung sections from the model group displayed a widened alveolar septum, capillary congestion, and inflammatory cell infiltration around the plasma vessels.
In particular, compared with the control group, the model group displayed increased levels of metabolites, including butanedioic acid, indole-3-carboxylic acid, citrate, hippuric acid, glutamate, and hexadecanoic acid, and decreased levels of glycine, leucine, phenol, proline, oleic acid, octadecenoic acid, lysine, and tryptophan.
No significant difference in mechanical thresholds was detected between the normal and sham model group (P>0.05), as shown in Figure 2A and B. Animals in the model group displayed significant allodynia to mechanical stimulation in both the hind paw and the abdomen (P<0.05).
Similar(56)
Interestingly, a small number of students from each group displayed mixed models while also incorporating non-adaptive reasoning into their explanations (ACORNS: two from the majors, two from the advanced majors; Interviews: one from the majors, four from the advanced majors) (Fig. 3).
The diabetic rats in each experimental group displayed steadily decreased body weight and persistent hyperglycaemia and hyperlipidaemia after modelling.
Sheep in the LPS-stored group displayed changes relative to sham, LPS-control and LPS-fresh groups (Table 2; by mixed models: P < 0.001 for all comparisons).
The 1958 group displayed a similar breakdown.
Each IT group displayed similar migration.
The KASE group displayed medium to severe SE during induction.
Third, the normal group displays a non-zero seizure rate which might be considered a practical failing of the model.
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