Exact(3)
Patients who received >1 g of protein/day (Group D) in the 1st evaluation (Table 79) had lower mortality than those who received less protein (Group C), but not in 2nd evaluation.
The concordance rates between the students and echocardiographers in the subjective analysis of LV function were 81.3% at the first evaluation, 96.9% at the second evaluation and 100% at the third evaluation (p < 0.001 for the 1st evaluation vs. the 3rd evaluation).
Frequency of tracheostomies was higher in patients who received more calories (group B) and protein(Group D) only in the 1st evaluation.
Similar(57)
The specifications of the RF4CE evaluation board are shown in Table 1.
In Figure 8, both qualitative as well as quantitative results of the 3D evaluation are presented.
The K1 evaluation informs learners of the value of the knowledge they have proferred.
We select the solution which requires the least modifications to the i2b2 evaluation framework and illustrate it with our system.
The M3 evaluation framework was used to investigate the effectiveness of using 'ThinknLearn' to facilitate student learning.
As a case study, we show how to model the physical components and subsystems of the AT91SAM9G45 evaluation board.
For the candidate words and phrases in Table 7, the 19 evaluation indices defined in Table 1 are calculated.
For all of the terms, the 18 evaluation indices values were calcluated in each timestamped data set.
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