Suggestions(1)
Exact(5)
Earlier TfL predictions were of thousands more cars snarling up west London.
Prior to the research being undertaken, predictions were of a 0.5 1% effect from particulate matter; the variation from prediction may be explained by cloud formation with the particles acting as the focus for droplet creation.
Of these factors, most predictions were of inhibition at day 4.
Unfortunately all associated gene predictions were of rather low quality and either incomplete or including apparently un-detected introns (or highly divergent insertions) and lacking in supporting EST evidence.
Manual correction of the entire gene set showed that initial in silico predictions were of good quality less than 1% of genes were spurious and only approximately 2% were missing (supplementary table S5, Supplementary Material online), the majority of which were "created" from gene splits from incorrect gene fusions and not from completely novel gene discovery (only 25 genes).
Similar(55)
Sequence based predictions for TM2 are inconsistent (Table 1), however, predicting either residues ∼80 100 or ∼90 110, with some predictions being of very low confidence.
Doomsday predictions are, of course, easy to defy, and hard to prepare for in any case.
Their brashest off-the-record predictions are of a sliver of a parliamentary majority.
The big pitfall of making predictions is, of course, making specific predictions that miss the mark in ridiculous ways.
Therefore, their reliable predictions are of great importance.
Nonetheless, the correctness of these predictions is of major importance for the eventual performance of the proposed algorithms.
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