Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
Quantification error for scans in air was better for TEW scatter correction (<6%) than for APDI (<11%).
Comparing sets 1 5 and sets A E, it is determined that the assumption of equal optical properties at excitation and emission wavelengths results in less than 5% quantification error for all three criteria.
Similar(58)
Figures 2b, 3b, and 4d show box plots summarizing quantification errors for different phantom scans.
Fig. 2 Quantification errors for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in air (a), and error distribution for both scatter correction methods, TEW and APDI (b).
In the top part of the figures, the quantification errors for individual objects, sorted by increasing volumes from the left (S1) to the right (C4), are presented.
Table 4 summarizes the mean quantification errors for the ROI with a diameter of 60%to90%0% of the physical diameter size, the three test phantoms, and the three calibration phantoms.
The boxes in (b) represent the range of variation (interquartile range-IQR) of the distributions Fig. 3 Quantification errors for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in cold water and error distribution (b) for both scatter correction methods, TEW and APDI (b).
Figure 3 Quantification error obtained for the three calibration phantoms and the three test phantoms.
Each trainee was provided with 10 stained slides and the reading was corrected out of 100 in which 10 point was given for correct reading, 5 point for Quantification Error (QE) and 0 point for any type of false reading (Low False Positive, High False Positive, Low False Negative or High False Negative) as per the scoring system of proficiency in reading [ 16].
The mean activity quantification error was −1.05 [2.12]%% for activity concentrations higher than 20 kBq/ml.
On the y-axis, the number of transcripts is shown for which the quantification error was not more than a given value (x-axis).
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