Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
However, no consensus yet exists in an international guideline regarding which assessment tool to use, and validation itself is problematic because of the lack of a standard to validate against that is not based on opinion.
Despite its thorough development and validation, the scale is problematic.
As others have mentioned, validation of PET/CT results is problematic as the gold standard, histological analysis of each detected lesion, is neither ethical nor practical, and is usually performed only in patients with positive PET/CT [29].
While validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, their use is of great value in the clinic, as a tool to better describe and evaluate treatment benefits at the patient's bedside, and also to modulate therapies.
Though validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones.
However, using the Tor network for certificate validation may be problematic as users have to trust exit nodes, whose trustworthiness has proven to be questionable in the past [41,42].
Data availability for a validation on a more detailed geographical level is problematic.
These observations suggest that model selection is problematic when the training and validation sets are too close to each other.
The omission is problematic.
Its availability is problematic.
Current practise is problematic.
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