Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
The secondary score for every voting/consensus model was calculated for each candidate structure by: S = mathop sum limits_{A} frac{{Ranking;left( {software A} right)}}{{omega left( {top 10;software A} right)}} where ω represents the calculated sensitivity.
Similar(59)
These associations were stronger for the MGI secondary scores, for which there is no apparent explanation, and also stronger in the German unit where information and support were evaluated less favourably, respectively in the Swiss unit where exclusive breastfeeding rates were higher.
These associations were significant for the whole study population (primary score: p < 0.01; secondary score: p < 0.01) and the German subsample (primary score: p < 0.01; secondary score: p < 0.01), but not for the Swiss subsample.
Bryant, Iverson and James do not have a reliable secondary scoring threat (Larry Hughes is sidelined for Cleveland), although the argument could be made that simply by shooting so much, they diminish their teammates' reliability.
Anthony was so dominant Tuesday that he almost did not leave room for any secondary scoring; J. R. Smith was second on the Knicks with 14 points.
Secondary scoring has been a big problem for Detroit in this series.
By sorting the results in two levels with primary scores in descending and secondary scores in ascending order, new rankings are obtained for each candidate structure.
Secondary scores therefore take into consideration the importance of the identified and scored areas of life for the woman.
The correlation between CORE-OM and other secondary measure scores for the same person will be estimated from the pilot data.
Differences in application scoring parameters are represented by Δ, whether it is the differential between primary and secondary reviewer scores for a given moment in time (for both prediscussion (ΔPS) and postdiscussion (ΔPD) time points) or the differential in scoring across discussion (for either the primary (ΔPRI) or secondary (ΔSEC) reviewer or the panel (ΔA=APS OS)).
At follow-up, the secondary outcomes; scores for self efficacy (intervention mean 69.49, s.d. 12.55 vs. control mean 52.08 s.d.21.172, p < 0.001) and knowledge (intervention mean 12.97, s.d.2.83, control mean 10.55, s.d. 3.92, p < 0.001), were significantly higher in the intervention group after adjusting for baseline differences using analysis of covariance (table 3).
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