Exact(6)
The tools were tested in the dry turning of three types of hardmetal differing in WC grain size (2 6 μm) and Co content (18 27 wt.%).
The tools were tested in modern versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer.
All but two of the tools were tested in the USA, while two were tested in Australia.
Nine of the tools were tested in specific pediatric specialties, pediatric units, or types of AEs; two of the latter included AEs from several pediatric specialties.
The tools were tested on their ability to identify SVs in the two reconstructed genomes described, human chromosome 21 and the Arabidopsis Lansberg (Ler) genome, a plant genome.
To assess results across different platforms, the tools were tested also on a different platform, an Intel Sandy Bridge with two 8-core sockets (2 HyperThreads) @2.2 GHz, 20 MB L3 cache with Linux x86_64 (only on a subdataset from Human-Ref19-1 from 1 Kbp up to 5 Kbp).
Similar(54)
Performance of the tools is tested with artificial and prokaryotic tree data.
First, they are compared in an intrinsic evaluation context, where the tools are tested for their ability to identify specific mentions of genetic variants in a corpus of manually annotated papers, the Variome corpus.
The ergonomics and the good use of the tool were tested first in painful and pain-free subjects.
Ten different versions of the tool were tested.
The tool was tested in the city of Mataram, the capital of West Nusa Tenggara province in Lombok, central Indonesia.
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