Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(15)
After correction for multiple testing, there were 14 significant major haplotypes in GABBR2 in the pooled population (Table 3), four in the AA population (Table 4), and five in the EA population (Table 4).
We acknowledge that by not correcting for multiple testing, there is an increased risk of false positive findings.
After correction for multiple testing, there were no statistically significant canonical pathways specifically assigned by Ingenuity to the CPE compared with the NPE.
After adjustment for multiple testing, there was no statistically significant postoperative difference between the LINFA group and the placebo group regarding pain and tiredness.
After accounting for multiple testing, there were no significant interactions for mammographic density between the investigated SNPs and current use of MHT.
Similarly, prior to correction for multiple testing, there are many other well-known innate immunity relevant transcription factors over-represented including CREB1, CEBPB, AP1 and STAT1.
Similar(45)
But after correction of multiple tests, there is no significance association between loci on 6q and susceptibility of psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia or affective disorder.
Even using relaxed parameters (p≤0.05, without multiple testing correction) there were still no differentially expressed genes that also displayed ≥2-fold change between the groups of SZ cases and controls common to both LCLs and fibroblasts.
To correct for multiple testing (as there are many probes being tested) we kept probes at a false discovery rate of 0.05.
Because of the multiple testing problem (there are hundreds of motifs in the JASPAR + UniProbe database), this is actually a very loose P-value threshold.
This leads to problems with multiple testing; if there are many areas some will be found to be statistically significantly different through chance alone.
More suggestions(2)
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