Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
The sample was relatively small, involving only three hospitals and 1023 nurses in North China, therefore the number of outcome events in some subgroups, especially chronic daily headache with low prevalence, is small.
Even though the difference between the true and observed relative risks is much smaller, the difference is still large when the true prevalence is small, most notably for PTSD at the lowest end of the compatible range (3%) which is associated with a low (and possibly implausible) true positive rate of 0.2%.
Similar(58)
Even a small false positive rate (e.g., 1%) can result in poor positive predictive value when applied to populations in which FSHD prevalence is smaller still (such as the general population).
The decision curve for a hypothetical perfect prediction model is in this example higher for the untreated than for the treated (because the prevalence is smaller than 0.5; Figure 1b).
The baseline status of the cohort is described in Table 2. Persons with Ad were somewhat more likely to have epilepsy or medically treated diabetes and less likely to have cardiovascular diseases or cancer, although the absolute differences in prevalence were small.
The prevalence was smaller among the children who used pacifier until 2 years of age.
Regional differences in prevalence were smaller in 2005.
The effect of occupation on tinnitus prevalence was smaller in women than in men, but the gender difference was not as marked as the previously reported effect of occupation on hearing loss in this sample.
However, the absolute prevalences were small.
When using the less sensitive limit for both fluids (i.e., 16,000 copies/mL), the difference between shedding prevalences was small (11% vs. 8%, P =0.34).
More specifically, polymorphism prevalence was low and almost constant at small repeat numbers (relatively low mutability) but grew markedly at large repeat numbers (hypermutability).
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