Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(60)
Samples were categorized as quartzite group and carbonate group according to ASTM standard 295.
Voice samples were categorized from low to high conception risk based on menstrual cycle phase and empirical pregnancy data.
For analysis, tissue samples were categorized into the following groups: injured meniscal site (IM), non-injured meniscal site (NIM), synovium 'nearest' the lesion (NS), and synovium from the opposite knee compartment, 'farthest' synovium (FS).
The remaining 18 samples were categorized into 5 GII genotypes including GII.4 (11), GII.8 (2), GII.1 (2), GII.5 (2) and GII.2 (1) as shown in Fig. 3.
The genes that were found to be differentially expressed between the two samples were categorized into Gene Ontology (GO) categories and fell into three major groups: cellular component, molecular function, and biological process.
Specifically, dead wood samples were categorized by decay class and divided into subsections where wood disks were cut (a cross section sample 5 to 10 cm thick) from each end and volume and weight measurements (wet and dry) were taken to determine the density of wood and bark [9].
For the hydrochemical analysis, 73 samples were categorized into five classes based on rock formations, namely migmatite (30), porphyritic granite (11), fine to medium grained granite (17), quartzite (4) and charnockitic bedrock (11) settings while the isotope samples in the same order of bedrocks were eleven (11), four (4), seven (7), two (2) and three (3).
These samples were categorized into three groups: negative expression; low expression (<10); and high expression (>10).
The samples were categorized as two groups, normal skin or benign nevi (normal/benign) and melanoma.
Samples were categorized into 4 habitat types: fecal, ocean, lagoon, and creek (Figure 1).
The samples were categorized as unmethylated or methylated based on optimal cut-offs from ROC analysis.
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