Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
We computed the proportion of variance that each test shares with the global score excluding that test (R t)(2)=CITC(2)) and the variance explained per minute of administration time for each test (R t)(2)/min).
Methods: We calculated the corrected item-total correlation (CITC) for each test score relative to the composite score, and then computed the proportion of variance that each test shares with the global score excluding that test (Rt2 = CITCt2) and the variance explained per minute of administration time for each test (Rt2/mint).
Functional status was defined as the sum of the ADL score excluding the walking item.
We analysed receiver operating characteristic curves to validate a simplified New Zealand score, excluding information from clinical examination.
We compared gene-specific classifier score (excluding any genes used in training) with the Cildb NOE output.
In the age < 36 years group, the mean score including all 14 items was higher than the mean score excluding item 4 (∆ Score = +0.65), whereas in the age ≥ 36 years group, the score including all items was lower than the mean score excluding item 4 (∆ Score = −0.29).
The modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) score, a customized SOFA score excluding the central nervous system component [ 1], was used for prognostic scoring.
A mean morning symptom score and a mean evening symptom score (excluding "sore teeth or gums" and "stomachache") was calculated for each subject for each day.
The summed score, excluding the items about pro-social behaviour, generates a total difficulties score, with a range of 0 to 40.
Outcomes of patients in relation to their SATS score (excluding cases who were dead on arrival – blue SATS cases) are shown in Figure 3.
Underlying comorbidity burden was assessed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index score (excluding diagnosis codes for lung cancer) with the Deyo adaptation for claims data [ 24].
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