Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(13)
First we respectively test the effectiveness of each expression cassette.
If we include indeterminate scans by scoring the former as false positives and the latter as false negatives, respectively, test performance remained robust with revised sensitivity 95%, specificity 97%, PPV 60% and NPV 99%.
The mean numbers of recommendations adhered to were 1.8, 1.6, and 1.4, among controls and participants with either low-risk or advanced neoplasia, respectively (test of linearity, p < 0.001).
The adjusted ORs for women who had ever and never used oral contraceptives were 0.75 (95% Cl 0.48-1.18) and 1.22 (95% Cl 0.79-1.89), respectestly (test for interaction P = 0.14).
The risk ratio for the second, third, and fourth quintiles compared with the first quintile was 1.1, 1.4, and 1.6, respectively (test for trend, p = 0.04); but for the fifth quintile the risk ratio was 1.1.
Moreover, in contrast to IL-6 and PCT, the age-adjusted ORs (95% CIs) of mortality among patients with septic shock increased continuously across PSP/ reg quartiles: PSP/ reg OR 1.0 [reference group], 1.5 (0.19 to 10.0), 5.1 (0.8 to 32.0), and 6.4 (0.96 to 42.0), respectively (test for trend P = 0.02).
Similar(46)
These configurations were, respectively, tested with positive and negative polarity.
Viscosity, speed, acceleration & acceleration time, and dipping time are, respectively, tested.
As for the corner-based methods, Harris [13], SIFT [14], SURF [15], ORB [16], FAST [17] and BRISK [18] corner detectors are, respectively, tested with the dataset.
Among the exposed and unexposed HCW enrolled, 4% (8/217) and 0.7% (2/309), respectively, tested positive for H5 antibodies, suggesting a risk of patient to HCW transmission.
The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and split-half coefficients were 0.94 and 0.88 respectively), test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient were 0.93), and construct validity of SCNUC (Item-total correlation were above 0.93) were good.
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