Exact(1)
with ME (1 g/kg), NBF (1 g/kg), SFI (1 g/kg), acarbose (positive control, 10 mg/kg), and distilled water (negative control).
Similar(59)
Pre-consensus agreement for CT scoring was 87% for spur (kappa 0.46), 76% for osteophyte (kappa 0.32), 94% for periosteal NBF (kappa 0.15), 99% for ankylosis (kappa 0.33) and 86% for sclerosis (kappa 0.69).
Pre-consensus agreement for XR scoring was 93% for spur (kappa 0.58), 74% for osteophyte (kappa 0.29), 93% for periosteal NBF (kappa 0.15), 99% for ankylosis (kappa 0.40) and 86% for sclerosis (kappa 0.64).
For each age group (for both NBF and NBF), 3 individual female mosquitoes were tested and repeated twice (all p<0.05).
Endometrial and decidual tissue was collected in sterile RPMI 1640 culture medium (Sigma, Poole, Dorset, UK) and processed in one of two ways: fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin (NBF) 24 h at 4°C followed by storage in 70% ethanol prior to wax embedding, or used for isolation of primary stromal cells as detailed below.
For this purpose, we used 10%% NBF, 20 % NBF, 10%% nonbuffered formalin, or 20%% nonbuffered formalin.
Use of 10 % NBF, 20 % NBF, or nonbuffered formalin as fixative was investigated.
Ventral prostates were removed and fixed in neutral-buffered formalin (NBF: 25 mmol·L−1 NaH2PO4; 50 mmol·L−1 Na2HPO4; 4% (w/v) formaldehyde).
To compare the effect of fixing solution on HER2 IHC, 10 % NBF, 20 % NBF, 10%% nonbuffered formalin, or 20%% nonbuffered formalin was used.
On both XR and CT, joints with bone erosion were more likely to have NBF; for CT, if erosion was present, the odds ratios (OR) was 45.1 for spur, 3.3 for osteophyte, 16.6 for periosteal NBF, 26.6 for ankylosis and 32.3 for sclerosis, P for all < 0.01.
Similarly, on CT, joints with intraosseous tophus were more likely to have NBF; if tophus was present, the OR was 48.4 for spur, 3.3 for osteophyte, 14.5 for periosteal NBF, 35.1 for ankylosis and 39.1 for sclerosis; P for all < 0.001.
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