Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(21)
The LFQ score of proteins with over 1.5-fold changes between any two samples and p value less than 0.05 were identified as differentially expressed proteins.
Training data are ((x_{i},y_{i} )_{n, times,(p + 1)}) where (n) is the number of samples and (p) is the dimension of input variables.
Let μ k ≜ x k 2 T x k 4 T ⋯ x kP − 1 T T denote the missing aperture samples, and P is supposed to be odd for the convenience of the following derivation.
Suppose there is a training set (X) that contains n1 samples and p genes.
For statistical analysis, the Wilcoxon test was used to compare the percentage of EZH2-positive nuclei between two samples and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Medians were compared across independent groups by non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney test) using Median Test for k samples and P 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Similar(38)
This ratio has an approximate standard normal distribution under the hypothesis of no difference between samples, and P-values are computed accordingly.
Proteins with 1.5 fold change between hexane-treated and control samples and p-value of statistical evaluation less than 0.05 were determined as differentially abundant proteins.
Pre/post self-confidence comparisons were carried out using the exact sign test for paired samples, and p-values of < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
The data were analyzed using Sigma Plot 12.0 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), and the values are represented as mean±standard deviation (S.D .. Unpaired student's t-test was used to determine the statistical significance of differences between the samples, and P-value <0.05 was considered as significant.
In the discovery phase, the top SNP associated with mean log adiponectin was rs3865188 in CDH13 on chromosome 16 (p = 1.69 × 10−15 in the initial sample, p = 6.58 × 10−39 in the second genome-wide sample, and p = 2.12 × 10−32 in the replication sample).
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