Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
There were 16 such specificities, comprising a total of 292 individual antibody sequences (mean, 18 sequences per specificity; range, 8 41).
The narrowness or breadth of the repertoires for individual specificities (Fig. 2) could simply reflect the number of epitopes per specificity.
Similar(58)
Combined evaluation of CTA + rsCTP had higher diagnostic accuracy over CTA alone (per-segment: specificity 96 versus 68%, p = 0.002; per-vessel: specificity 95 versus 75%, p = 0.012) and high overruling rate of rsCTP was proved in intermediate stenosis (40 70%).
Since the per-polyp specificity cannot be calculated because it is a nonexisting entity, we confined the per-polyp results to the number of false positive findings.
Overall per-patient specificity (using bootstrapping) for the radiographers was 81.4 % (95 % CI 73.7 89.2) for patients with polyps ≥6 mm.
The radiologists obtained an overall per-patient specificity using bootstrapping of 81.1 % (95 % CI 73.8 88.3) for patients with polyps ≥6 mm.
Overall per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm were 81.4%% (95 % CI 73.7 89.2) and 81.1 % (95 % CI 73.8 88.3) for the radiographers and the radiologists, respectively.
The AUC for the model was found to be 0·76 (95 per cent c.i. 0·68 to 0·84), and setting a cut-off score of −43 gave a sensitivity of 91·1 per cent, specificity of 55·3 per cent, PPV of 60·0 per cent and NPV of 89·4percentnt (Fig. 7).
Multireader, multicase analysis of per-patient sensitivity and specificity and of per-lesion sensitivity and false-positive marks per case used the models of Obuchowski and Rockette (1995) [ 24] and was implemented in Splus (version 6.2 for Windows, Professional Edition).
No differences in per patient specificity between the two preparation groups were found.
1. Difference in per patient specificity of MRE and USS for the correct identification and localisation of small bowel CD. 2. Comparison of USS and MRE detection of patients with active small bowel CD.
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