Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
Tumour resection margins were more commonly positive or close (⩽2 mm) in ILC (19 vs 11%) and the rate of breast-conserving surgery was also lower (19 vs 34%).
Similar(59)
Prevalent invasive breast cancers were on the whole larger (P<0.001) and more commonly LN positive than incident cases (P=0.02).
Ready-to-eat products were more commonly culture positive (11/23; 47.8%) than were uncooked meats (26/65; 40.0%), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.34).
Younger individuals more commonly had positive responses at baseline and were less likely to respond with 20%and50%0% showing no responses to H1N1 and H3N2 virus respectively.
Proximal tumors were more commonly Her2/neu-positive (11.8%), compared with distal tumors (6.5%).
Neither histories nor pregnancy tests are perfect screening tools; "false negatives" can occur when pregnancy tests miss early pregnancies, and, more commonly, "false positives" occur (with published frequency ranging from 12% to 39% ) when the pregnancy checklist fails to exclude pregnancy in non-pregnant women.
This might explain that EpCAM (EpEX and EpICD -positive cancEpICD -positiven 1.3- and 2.1-fold, more cancersy negative than positive for E-cadherin in our cohort (Table 3).
It is important to consider the validity of the diagnostic tests, and/or how much more commonly they are positive in patients with asthma compared to healthy subjects and, particularly, to patients with asthma-like symptoms.
The early onset cases were more commonly associated with positive family history and with autonomic dysfunction.
Nevertheless, tumors of patients in the third LDL-C tertile are more commonly Her2-neu positive, when compared to others tertiles (P 0,002).
In CTC-positive women with DCIS/LCIS or M0 BC, HER2-positive CTCs were more commonly detected in HER2-positive (5 of 5 women) than HER2-negative BC (5 of 12 women) (p = 0.03).
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