Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(10)
Their rate was not only high in the non-participating groups but also in the participating groups, with a percentage of 36% (n = 15) in complete participants; the difference between the groups was therefore not significant.
Fourth, across participants the difference between the subjective duration of repeated and novel items was related to the accuracy of discrimination.
In 16 (out of 20) participants the difference in SCRs between very unexpected and expected chords was larger for the expressive than for the non-expressive chords, but only 9 participants showed this effect of expression for the difference between unexpected (original) and expected chords.
For some participants the difference in learning opportunities and standards was problematic.
Although medication use was less for all three risk factor categories for ILI compared with DSE participants, the difference was most pronounced for diabetes medications.
Around 95% of the differences were between -10.0 and +6.8; for 29.4% of the participants, the difference between paired MMSE scores was 5 or more.
Similar(50)
Despite substantial variations between the participants, the differences are statistically significant (Friedman test P = 0.01).
Bland-Altman Plots then depict for each individual participant the difference between two transformed scores (for example CARAT ACT) on the y-axis and the mean of the two measurements divided by two on the x-axis.
For each participant, the difference between their expected probability of sequential successful encoding, calculated according to their overall rate of successful encoding, and their observed probability of sequential successful encoding, was calculated.
This could have led to under-reporting of BMI in non-participants, inflating the difference between participants and non-participants.
Non-participants then had lower referral rates than participants but the difference remained insignificant.
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