Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(47)
When comparing rates of positivity for individual filters, qPCR postenrichment was more often positive than culture methods (for qPCR postenrichment versus direct plating, P = 0.003; for qPCR postenrichment versus broth enrichment culture, P < 0.001).
When DE was negative, MPCR was markedly more often positive than C (63% vs. 27%, p = 0.0007).
However, the family history of breast cancer was more often positive in cases of non-consanguineous parents (15.7%) than cases of consanguineous parents (10.0%).
The cytoplasm of neoplastic cells in the lung was immunohistochemically positive for von Willebrand factor (i.e., factor VIII related antigen) and was more intensively and more often positive for vascular endothelial growth factor as compared with nonneoplastic cells.
Make sure that the images that you take in are at least 3 times more often positive than any negative ones.
Women not living with their parents tested significantly more often positive for HPV than women who were living with their parents (20.9% versus 15.2%, OR 1.468, 95% C.I. 1.055 2.041, p = 0.02).
Similar(13)
That is, participants in the negative training group more frequently chose negative interpretations, whereas participants in the positive training group more often endorsed positive interpretations.
New born piglets (moment 2) in Dutch herds were more often MRSA positive (P < 0.0001) if their dam was MRSA positive before farrowing compared to MRSA negative dams.
Tumors with negative IHC more often demonstrated positive estrogen (P = 0.001) and proges-terone (P = 0.001) expression than did patients with positive IHC.
Negative trends in flood magnitude are found more often than positive trends, and the regional patterns of significant trends reflect differences in the flood generating processes (FGPs).
Overall, males employed acoustic response more often than positive phonotactic response.
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