Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(4)
Landis and Koch's benchmarks [17] were used to evaluate simple and weighted k statistics in which k in the ranges of <0.00, 0.00 0.20, 0.21 0.40, 0.41 0.60, 0.61 0.80, 0.81 1.00, respectively, correspond to poor, slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and almost perfect agreement.
The agreement between HYDEqPCR and milk qPCR and milk ELISA was poor, slight, and non-significant.
Agreement between DO and RE was assessed by percent agreement and kappa statistics, with values < 0, 0.21 0.40, 0.41 0.60, 0.61 0.80, 0.61–0.80, and 0.81 1.00 considered as poor, slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and almost perfect agreement, respectively.
Therapeutic responses are recorded and defined in five grades: Grade I excellent: colour is close to normal skin colour and no scar formation; Grade II good: marked blanching, thicker lesion become flat, no scar formation; Grade III fair: partial blanching, thicker lesion becomes moderately flat; Grade IV poor: slight blanching, thicker lesion becomes slightly flat; and Grade V: no change.
Similar(56)
The political system ignores the poor, slights the middle class, and grovels to the rich.
Queens Park Rangers' position is so poor that slight improvement will not save them.
As agreement was poor to slight, participants were effectively blinded throughout the trial (table 6).
The other four kappa coefficients were highly insignificant (p ≥0.05) with poor and slight agreement seen (Table 3).
The estimated agreements between HYDEqPCR and milk qPCR, and HYDEqPCR and milk ELISA were poor and slight, respectively, with no significance seen.
The parameter cut-points described by Landis and Koch (1997) were used to judge adequacy of agreement (Kappa = 0 poor; 0.01 0.2 slight; 0.21 0.4 Fair; 0.41 0.6 Moderate; 0.61 0.8 Substantial; 0.81 1.0 Almost perfect).
To interpret the strength of reliability within the Kappa values, we used the classification by Landis and Koch [ 25]: <0.00, poor; 0.00-0.20, slight; 0.21-0.40, fair; 0.41-0.60, moderate; 0.61-0.80, substantial; 0.81-1.00, almost perfect.
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