Ai Feedback
Exact(9)
There were 742 patients (64%) with a laboratory result including one or more abnormal tests.
Overall, during follow-up the 12 monthly group had more abnormal tests requiring dose adjustment.
Those patients with two or more abnormal tests were classified as "with CAN" (CAN+).
Two or more abnormal tests were required for a confirmed diagnosis of cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN).
Two or more abnormal tests were defined as CAN-positive (ECG-based CAN) and one or fewer as CAN-negative.
Two or more abnormal tests were defined as CAN-positive (ECG-based CAN) and one or fewer as CAN-negative [ 23, 24].
Similar(51)
Of the 50 patients who underwent liver-function tests, only seven patients had two or more abnormal test results.
Cardiac autonomic neuropathy is defined as the presence of 3 or more abnormal test results among these 7 tests [ 19].
According to the Gaussian distribution, the number of low scores varies as a function of the cut-off score the higher the cut-off score, the more abnormal test scores are required to diagnose cognitive impairment.
Participants with one or more abnormal screening test results underwent advanced imaging with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for carotid and aortic plaques, contrast-enhanced coronary CT angiography for luminal stenosis and noncalcified plaques, and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT for carotid and aortic plaque inflammation.
In South Africa, among 50 insulin-dependent diabetic patients, a prevalence of 32% was found based on one or more abnormal autonomic function tests [ 6].
Related(16)
more abnormal births
more abnormal mammograms
more abnormal people
more technical tests
more abnormal dimensions
more abnormal reflexes
more abnormal postures
more abnormal chromosomes
more abnormal flies
more sophisticated tests
more abnormal things
more abnormal values
more abnormal behaviors
more abnormal scores
more abnormal outcomes
more abnormal blood
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