Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(58)
Figure 1 shows some representative slide images from the validation data set.
The images from the subject with deuteranopia were used in the validation data set.
As noted previously, one subject used in the confocal validation data set had deuteranopia.
The validation data set contained 40 ER+ invasive breast cancer patients from the Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ).
Predictions were accurate for all levels of SOM content in the validation data set.
Similarly, in the validation data set, 5-year survival was 57% (MAPS-) vs. 28% (MAPS+, p = 0.005).
The models generated correctly classified about 70% of the validation data set.
Performances of the developed models were assessed by simulation with the validation data set.
The predictive ability of the model was evaluated using validation data set.
Similar(2)
Sawtimber top diameter limits were, on average, at a relative height of 60%% for trees in the split-validation data set and at a relative height of 67%% for those in the independent-validation data set.
For prediction of diameters up to 60%% of total height, the BASE model performed better on trees in the independent-validation data set than it did on those in the split-validation data set (Fig. 4a versus Fig. 4b).
More suggestions(3)
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