Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
Thus, for an average participant, every 6 point (~1 SD) increase in harm avoidance score at baseline, the rate of progression of parkinsonism increased about 50% compared to an individual with an average harm avoidance score.
Similar(59)
Such a sequence is surrounded by many other high-fitness genotypes, and the average harm done by a single mutation is therefore relatively low.
The harmonic average (Harm) is computed using the mean of all of the separated harmonic signals.
More specifically, the average life span gain from not smoking, 0.31 years, was one-third of the average harm done by adding weight, 1.02 years.
This model shows the cross sectional association of an average baseline harm avoidance score with parkinsonism at baseline as well as the association of the average harm avoidance score with the annual rate of change in parkinsonism.
The average harm rate for all hospitals was 60 per 1000 patient-days ranging from 34 to 84.
In total, 687 adverse events were identified in 11 487 patient-days, that is, the overall average harm rate was 60 per 1000 patient-days.
In contrast a similar participant whose baseline harm avoidance score was increased by a 6-point (~1 SD), had an untransformed parkinsonian score of 6.87 at study entry and an increase 0.42 units during their first year in the study, a difference of about 1.6 times larger than the typical participant with the average harm avoidance score.
But as more random mutations are added, high-fitness genotypes become less common, and the average harm of multiple mutations is stronger than what the effect of single mutations indicated.
Therefore an MRR of 1 implies that all patients or practices are equally likely to suffer or cause harm, while an MRR of 2 implies an average twofold difference in harm susceptibility.
NNH is the number of patients on average need to be exposed to a risk factor to cause harm in an average of one patient who would not otherwise have been harmed.
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