Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(2)
The phrase "and excluded a number" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a situation where certain items, individuals, or options have been intentionally left out or not included in a group or list.
Example: "The committee reviewed the applications and excluded a number that did not meet the criteria."
Alternatives: "and omitted several" or "and left out a few".
Exact(2)
We then investigated factors that underlie or contribute to facial shape and excluded a number of potential confounders.
Second, our study considered only life-saving programs and excluded a number of potentially relevant attributes in an attempt to address comments from the pilot surveys regarding the difficulty of making tradeoffs over even a relatively small number of attributes and in recognition of the potential for cognitive overload when individuals are faced with abstract and complex decisions [ 29- 31].
Similar(58)
The analysis took a conservative approach and excludes a number of potential resources that may increase the potential economic burden.
39 However, current licensing arrangements for generic manufacture are too restrictive because they are limited to specific companies and exclude a number of high HIV-burden countries, 40 including South Africa and Brazil, which account for a substantial proportion of the total number of people receiving antiretroviral therapy in low-income and middle-income countries.
We recruited a relatively small number of patients in this pilot study and excluded a large number of patients, which included those admitted to the ICU, with clinically relevant hepatic disease, with pancreatitis, with serum creatinine ≥3.0 mg/dL or GFR <30 mL/min, with severe hyperglycemia (BG >400 mg/dL), and receiving a total dose of insulin >0.4 units/kg/day prior to admission.
In exploring the data we identified and excluded a small number (less than 1%) of individual samples which were clearly technical failures based on criteria including atypical raw intensity distribution and poor correlation of β with other samples.
Weller and Davis-Beaty [ 8] excluded a number of studies from their primary analysis because of concerns about heterogeneity.
We excluded a number of studies as they did not meet our inclusion criteria.
Also, as with other studies based on administrative data, we included cases specifically recorded with acute pancreatitis (ICD-10 code = K85), and excluded a relatively small number of cases that were recorded vaguely on the discharge record as 'disease of pancreas, unspecified' (K86.9: 274 vs. 10 589 for acute pancreatitis).
Whilst we could have been more strict in our interpretation of the criteria for a systematic review and exclude a greater number of potentially eligible records before reaching the stage of data extraction, this would not have necessarily restricted the analysis to reviews with higher AMSTAR scores.
However, numerous studies have suggested that increased taxonomic sampling generally leads to improved accuracy in phylogenetic inference ([ 67, 68, 75, 86- 90]; but see also [ 3, 91]; as summarized in [ 6, 7]), and excluding a large number of taxa may thus significantly decrease the accuracy of inference outcomes.
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