Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
CD133− cells from IC-1406GBM were not tested due to poor tumor-forming capacity.
Higher concentrations than 10 μM were not tested due to poor solubility in the aqueous assay buffer.
lnλ = log likelihood difference between the two models df = degrees of freedom *Multiple topologies for rodent phylogenies were tested due to poor phylogenetic resolution in this lineage - the conclusion of positive selection is not dependent on the use of a particular topology; the values reported are those found when used with a phylogeny consistent with the consensus view of rodent evolution.
Similar(57)
One question was dropped from each of the ORS & FWS tests due to poor point-biserial correlations.
Polyplexes formed with the VGD precursors exhibited negligible transfection at all N/P ratios tested due to their poor ability to condense DNA.
The 'system and insurer trust' domain was not fully tested due to data limitation and poor model fit.
One subject was excluded from this test due to poor health and one did not reach the criterion in the training phase, hence 9 started the control test.
Ten patients did not fill out the tests due to poor Italian language (4 patients) or to a low educational level.
Most of the 33 excluded women were either not able to perform the test due to poor bicycling skills, or not able to bike at the correct speed, or had inadequate muscular strength to perform the test.
All ten subjects reached the learning criterion in the training phase, but one was excluded from the subsequent test phase due to poor health, and hence nine started the test phase.
33 On the other hand, indirect comparison suggests that the present model's sensitivity and specificity for advanced colorectal neoplasia may be comparable with a single round guaiac faecal occult blood test (mostly due to poor diagnostic performance of guaiac faecal occult blood test for detection of advanced adenomas).
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