Suggestions(1)
Exact(60)
One study categorized patients into four groups: the truly healthy (I am healthy and I know it!), the health evaders (I am dying and I know it...), the health illusionists (I am dying and I deny it...) and of course, the worried well – constituting a fifth of patients – who are well, yet incongruently worried.
Using a scoring system, we categorized patients as having exclusive, predominant, somewhat or no right or left lateralized pain.
The final functional outcome was completed by questionnaires including Odom's criteria [12] which categorized patients' satisfaction into four grades: excellent, good, fair and poor.
We categorized patients into 3 groups (low, moderate, high) based on day 4 IL-10 percentiles ( < 25th, 25-75th, >75th) and change from day 2 values.
We further categorized patients regarding troponin elevation.
Nearly all GPs categorized patients, some more explicitly than others.
They categorized patients at a very early stage of the consultation, at the expense of listening.
We, therefore, categorized patients into three groups with significantly different probabilities of survival.
We additionally categorized patients as to whether they met criteria for HCAP [ 3].
First, we categorized patients using the GOLD criterion: postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 0.70 to define COPD.
However, existing studies [ 31– 33] have categorized patients into distinct subpopulations (e.g., via gender, age groups).
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