Exact(3)
Estimates of gene copies per ml original sample for sample A were ~109 copies per ml, with PowerBiofilm and QuickGene setting the lower and upper limits, respectively.
Here we construct an aggregate control sample for sample i from the set of all other samples, and instead.
Figure 2 shows the estimated power curves for Methods 1, 2 and 3 and the two bootstrap methods (t and MW tests) at the 5% two-sided significance level for detecting a location shift (mean difference) δ = 5 in the SF-36 GH dimension using the data from the general population as our pilot sample, for sample sizes per group varying from 50 to 600.
Similar(57)
However, the noise and incorrect sampling for sample data remain a problem [69].
Notably, samples were analyzed by applying a HTS-sampler for sample loading in 96-well format.
Differences between accuracies from optimized model versus random samples for sample size = 80. Figure S3.
Differences between accuracies from optimized model versus random samples for sample size = 50.
Caveolin-1 protein expression was investigated in 28 IVD samples (for sample details, see Table 2).
RNA samples were randomized using a numerical ID, in order to blind samples for sample type (fresh-frozen or FFPE) and sample pairs.
Finally, there are several types of cervical cytological sampling brushes, but this study only used a conical cervical sampler for sample collection.
A clearly elevated strength is observed, as high as about twice the value of bulk samples, for samples with diameters approaching 100 nm.
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