checked for discrepancies

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "checked for discrepancies" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to the process of examining something for inconsistencies or errors. Example: "Before finalizing the report, we ensured that all data was checked for discrepancies to maintain accuracy."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

10 human-written examples

Pairs of data-extraction forms will be checked for discrepancies.

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Initial inspection of the data checked for discrepancies in coding, and explored patterns of missing data.

BMC Palliative Care

Genotype calls and clusters were manually checked for discrepancies and doubtful calls were rejected.

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

There was cross coding by another author and this was then checked for discrepancies with differences resolved by discussion.

BMC Health Services Research

Data were checked for discrepancies and then exported to STATA version 11 (college Station, Texas, USA) for analysis.

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Data were entered twice, by different persons, in EpiData v3.1 (Epidata Association, Denmark) and checked for discrepancies.

BMC Public Health

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

50 human-written examples

If it is not, check for discrepancies in Reconciliation Report.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prospective employers will check for discrepancies between your CV and LinkedIn profile.

The Guardian

Simple line flow balances are used to check for discrepancies on hourly, daily, or weekly bases.

Pipeline Rules of Thumb Handbook Quick and accurate solutions to your everyday pipeline problems

In addition to looking for credit competition and course requirements, PCSB auditors check for discrepancies between students' report cards, grade change forms and transcripts.

The Washington Post

Vast rooms with hundreds of cubicles are filled with young Indians who transfer data from doctors' clinical-trial reports into databases, check for discrepancies and errors, and provide feedback to doctors within days.Some Indian drug companies saw the new patent change coming years ago and realised that future growth would come from innovation, not imitation.

The Economist

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When documenting data validation processes, specify which data points were "checked for discrepancies" to enhance clarity and transparency.

Common error

Avoid stating that all data was "checked for discrepancies" without detailing the specific areas or methods used, as this can create a false sense of complete validation.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "checked for discrepancies" functions as a passive verb phrase, indicating an action performed on a subject. Ludwig AI examples show its use in describing data validation, translation verification, and quality control processes. The phrase highlights the act of scrutinizing information to identify inconsistencies.

Expression frequency: Uncommon

Frequent in

Science

60%

Academia

20%

News & Media

20%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "checked for discrepancies" is a grammatically correct and usable phrase, as affirmed by Ludwig AI. It signifies the action of verifying data for inconsistencies, commonly employed in scientific, academic, and professional contexts. While not exceedingly frequent, its precise meaning makes it valuable in scenarios demanding accuracy and reliability. Alternatives like ""verified for inconsistencies"" or "examined for errors" offer similar meanings, yet the original phrase maintains a specific focus on identifying inconsistencies between data points. When using this phrase, ensure clarity by specifying the data points and methods involved to avoid overgeneralization.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

verified for inconsistencies

Replaces "checked" with "verified", emphasizing the confirmation aspect of the process, and "discrepancies" with "inconsistencies", a synonymous term.

examined for errors

Uses "examined" to highlight a detailed inspection and "errors" as a general term for inaccuracies.

validated for accuracy

Focuses on confirming the correctness of the data, substituting "checked" with "validated" and "discrepancies" with a focus on "accuracy".

audited for compliance

Suggests a formal review process, replacing "checked" with "audited" and shifting the focus to adherence to standards rather than simple discrepancies.

screened for anomalies

Implies a filtering process to identify unusual or unexpected data points, using "screened" instead of "checked" and "anomalies" to mean deviations.

inspected for deviations

Uses "inspected" to convey a thorough examination and replaces "discrepancies" with "deviations", which suggests departures from a norm or standard.

assessed for irregularities

Replaces "checked" with "assessed", indicating an evaluation, and "discrepancies" with "irregularities", highlighting deviations from expected patterns.

reviewed for variations

Emphasizes a formal review process to identify differences or changes, using "reviewed" instead of "checked" and "variations" to suggest fluctuating data.

cross-referenced for conflicts

Highlights the act of comparing multiple sources to identify disagreements, using "cross-referenced" and specifying the type of discrepancies as "conflicts".

compared for inconsistencies

Focuses on the comparative aspect of checking data by using "compared" and highlighting that the data is inconsistent.

FAQs

How can I use "checked for discrepancies" in a sentence?

You can use "checked for discrepancies" to describe the process of verifying data or information for inconsistencies. For example, "The report was "verified for inconsistencies" before submission."

What's the difference between "checked for discrepancies" and "checked for errors"?

"Checked for discrepancies" specifically refers to looking for inconsistencies between different pieces of information, while "checked for errors" is a more general term for identifying any kind of mistake or inaccuracy.

What can I say instead of "checked for discrepancies"?

You can use alternatives like ""verified for inconsistencies"", "examined for errors", or "validated for accuracy" depending on the context.

In what contexts is it most appropriate to use "checked for discrepancies"?

It is most appropriate in contexts where data accuracy and consistency are critical, such as in scientific research, financial auditing, or quality control processes. It's also suitable when describing the validation of translations, as shown in some Ludwig examples.