Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(14)
Statistical significance was set at a probability value of <.05.
The level of significance was set at a probability of *p < 0.001.
A Student t test was used to quantify the differences of the stress magnitudes between the 2 groups and the coefficient of variation for each magnitude, with the level of statistical significance set at a probability value of.05.
The level of significance (p) was set at a probability value of less than 0.05.
Statistical significance was set at a probability value <0.05.
Statistical significance was set at a probability level of 0.05.
Similar(46)
For SGRS, the number of false positives varied from 6.43 to 66.14 when sensitivity ranged from 75% (corresponding to a detection threshold set at an individual probability of 0.1157) to 100% (corresponding to a detection threshold set at an individual probability of 0.0098), corresponding to a range in the number of true positives from 5.19 to 6.92.
For gastrointestinal syndrome group, the number of false positives varied from 13.23 to 72.26 when sensitivity ranged from 75% (corresponding to a detection threshold set at an individual probability of 0.0115) to 100% (corresponding to a detection threshold set at an individual probability of 0.0013), corresponding to the range in the number of true positives from 0.60 to 0.80.
For cutaneous syndrome group, the number of false positives varied from 2.08 to 71.81 when sensitivity ranged from 75% (corresponding to a detection threshold set at an individual probability of 0.0568) to 100% (corre-sponding to a detection threshold set at an individual probability of 0.0014), corresponding to the range in the number of true positives from 1.25 to 1.65.
The statistical significance was set at a two tailed probability level of p < 0.05.
The probability of survival was set at a constant, and it was hypothesised that the probability of recapture might be dependent upon 1) Age, 2) Sex, 3) Time, and 4) Wing length.
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