Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(1)
Further quality control and data normalisation using the Bioconductor package ChAMP [ 28] implemented the removal of all probes where at least one sample showed poor detection (detection P > 0.01), leaving 435,385 normalised β-values.
Similar(59)
APOE ε4 carriers (56% of the sample) showed poorer performance than non-carriers on the Mini Mental State Examination, a number of measures of verbal memory function from the California Verbal Learning Test, and visual recall.
This opens up new possibilities for crystal structure determination in the absence of high-quality data, e.g. when dealing with highly unstable phases or when the sample shows poor crystallinity (David et al., 2005 ▶; Schmidt et al., 2005 ▶).
All the crystallised mannitol samples showed poor flowability.
ASCs without any treatment (control samples) showed poor organized actin structure.
Among these, 20.83 % of the samples showed excellent water, 45.83 % of the samples fell under good water category, 20.83 % of the samples showed poor water category, 4.16 and 8.33 % of the samples fell under very poor water quality and water unsuitable for drinking purposes, respectively.
The Helianthus L. samples showed poor amplification due to an indel in the primer-binding site and unspecific HRM curves.
Nonetheless, genes that were lowly expressed in all samples showed poor correlations between imputed and observed expression across the 52 samples we used to test the imputation model.
Among the 184 patients, 9 patients were later excluded because the blood samples showed poor quality or hemolysis during preparation and were discarded.
Since DBS samples showed poor performance with TPHA and EIA (TPHA sensitivity was 50.5%95%5% confidence interval: 39.9 61.2%) and EIA specificity was 50.4%95%5% CI: 43.7 57.1%), only the DBS TPPA was used in the final evaluation.
The majority of the samples are in Class I followed by Class II, indicating that the water is moderate to good for irrigation purposes with a few samples showing poor irrigation quality.
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