Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
Results of a mixed 2 × 2 × 2 subjects design among 123 participants showed that pull measures were evaluated as more acceptable than push measures; and when environmental policies targeted high cost behaviour, participants evaluated policies as less acceptable than when low cost behaviour was targeted.
The scoring scale is from 0 (worst QOL) to 100 (best QOL) [14] Other clinical measures were evaluated as previously described [11].
Anthropometric measures were evaluated as clinical estimates of whole-body adipose tissue compartments.
Baseline values of six laboratory and five clinical measures were evaluated as potential predictors of 28-day mortality.
In the Gambian survey, several simple anthropometric measures were evaluated as potential screening tools for knock-knee and bow-leg deformities.
Anthropometric measures were evaluated as raw data and also expressed as z-scores relative to the growth standards of the World Health Organization (WHO Multicentre Growth Reference 2006) using a World Health Organization software program (http://www.who.int/childgrowth/software/en/).
Similar(54)
In detail, the meaningfulness of 16 measures was evaluated as being positive (= 70% "good"), whereas the feasibility of six out of these 16 measures was evaluated as being negative (= 30% "good").
The prognostic value of the RT-PCR measured gene signatures were evaluated as continuous and dichotomous variables, and in conditional risk models incorporating clinical parameters.
Situations in which the dying process has not yet started, in which untreatable mental symptoms are the indication for terminal sedation or in which life-sustaining measures are withdrawn during sedation were evaluated as morally difficult.
Dose, daily AUC with AUC = 0 during off-treatment periods, or predicted concentration time profiles were evaluated as exposure measures.
Smoking, gender, and latency were evaluated as effect-measure modifiers using likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) for interaction on the multiplicative scale adjusted as described above.
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