Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
Receiver operating Characteristics (ROC) used to establish cut off titre, was determined by plotting specificity (x-axis) versus sensitivity (y-axis) at all tested cut off titres.
Similar(59)
Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing is considerably more effective than gFOBT screening within the range of tested cut-off values.
Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing screening is considerably more effective than gFOBT within the complete range of tested cut-off values.
Even though the total number of variant calls unique to the genomic DNA (retrieved by the GT analysis) is larger, a larger number of variants was detected in the CT analysis at all tested cut-off values.
In the range of tested cut-off levels, FIT detected more advanced neoplasia than gFOBT (gFOBT: 1.2%; 95% CI: 0.8 1.7%; FIT: 3.2%; 95% CI: 2.6 3.9%; FIT: 2.1%; 95% CI: 1.6 2.6%), whereas similar detection rates for CRC were found for gFOBT and FIT screening.
Our results show that FIT within the complete range of tested cut-off values (50 200 ng ml−1) outperforms gFOBT screening as it is associated with both higher attendance as well as higher detection rates of advanced neoplasia, even though the PPV for detecting advanced neoplasia did not differ significantly between both tests.
All other tested cut-offs were inferior to the SUVmax.
We were not able to test cut-off values other than the median for pain thresholds, because sample sizes in each subgroup would have become too small.
Patients with unreported data variables were filtered out and test cut-off points were recursively determined by setting bounds at all possible combinations of the supplied data, using age and LDH as the test coordinates.
ANOVA failed in evidencing sex or M duration relationship, whereas a modest significativity (p>0.02) was related to high scores in Wang and Zung tests (cut off = 40).
The best-performing training classifier included 138 genes (F test cut off, p<4×10−7) and demonstrated an accuracy of 85%.
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