Ai Feedback
Exact(7)
The majority of prognostic studies have been summarized in the publications cited below as to outcomes and dictates, and therefore, these studies do not warrant individual discussion here.
Reliable and clinically useful meta-analyses of observational and nonrandomised studies, such as the majority of prognostic marker studies, are generally difficult to perform (Fleiss and Gross, 1991).
Despite the inability to accurately predict outcomes for individual patients, this example clearly illustrates that existing clinicopathological factors account for the vast majority of prognostic variability in gliomas.
Although a series of quality criteria needed to be fulfilled to allow study inclusion, we were unable to confirm the majority of prognostic markers selected.
The majority of prognostic factor studies are questionable in terms of sample size and statistical methods, most based on small retrospective analyses.
The majority of prognostic research is done retrospectively, simply because results are obtained much more quickly and cheaply by using existing data.
Similar(53)
The majority of established prognostic signatures were mainly designed for ER-positive breast cancer patients.
The majority of published prognostic models predicts a binary outcome, such as case-fatality using binary logistic regression [ 4- 7].
Our results suggest that in the large majority of cases, prognostic and ACP discussions do not negatively affect patient or caregiver hopes or their perception of the medical team.
The majority of known prognostic factors were included in our analysis, but we cannot exclude that other variables not recorded in our study (for example, biomarkers) may have influenced outcome.
The various multiparameter molecular marker assays all include genes reflecting proliferative activity: indeed, it has been suggested that the majority of the prognostic information in these tests comes from the proliferative genes included [ 23].
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