Suggestions(2)
Exact(1)
To test whether the choice to use the CCC data was associated with the accessibility of available data we determined for each indicator and access category separately how often a hospital used the CCC score and tested the association with a 2 × 2 (DA/EA vs. OWN, CCC) chi square test.
Similar(59)
They were separately asked how often their partner undertook the same activities with their child.
We separated out how often the on/off errors occur and graphed them separately (Fig. 7B).
In each cell line separately, we counted how often a protein had the center of its ChIP-seq peak within ± 200 bp from CTCF sites in three classes: the 12,014 cCTCF/cCohesin sites, the 925 cCTCF-non-cohesin sites, and all CTCF sites bound in the given cell line but excluding the cCTCF sites.
Each staff group was listed separately under each question: "How often, if ever, have any of the following persons mistreated you (each type of mistreatment was asked separately)?" and the following options were given: "never", "rarely (1 2 times)", "sometimes (3 4 times)" and "often (5 times or more)".
Separately, they were asked how often they ate any fruits or vegetables labeled "organic"' or "chemical- or pesticide-free".
Participants are asked to rate how often during the past four months their friends and family (separately) supported them/discouraged them to exercise in a variety of ways.
Questions regarding anal sex with men were asked separately for receptive and insertive sex (e.g., In the past year, how often did another man penetrate you during anal sex?).
For each of the patient cases separately, the subgroup who decided to prescribe was compared with those with an opposite decision regarding how often they valued different information categories.
To assign statistical significance, separately for gain and loss, we use this null distribution of permuted data to calculate p-values based on how often the randomly permuted score exceeds the sample score (Eq. 3).
This was followed by a personal interview performed by a single examiner (IS) in which patients were asked to count how often they had actually experienced the impact of problems referred to in each OHIP item within the last four weeks separately.
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