Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
Small black bears and large sun bears make similar-sized claw marks; marks in this size range were categorized as indeterminant.
To ease analysis "underweight" and "normal range" were categorized as 'normal' while "pre-obese" and "obese Class I, II and III" were categorized as 'obese'obese
Similar(58)
Measurement range was categorized as eight registered outcomes versus less than eight registered outcomes.
The post-collapse modes are discussed and the change of the buckling mode for different plate thickness ranges is categorized.
BMI ranges are categorized in numbers, where underweight BMI is less than18.5, normal weight BMI is 18.5 to 24.9, overweight BMI is 25 to 29.9, and obese BMI is 30 or higher.
Total scores (possible range 16 64) were categorized as low (16 40), moderate (41 52), or high stigma (53 64).
Total scores (possible range 15 75) were categorized as low (15 34), moderate (35 54), or high self-efficacy (55 75).
Within the thermal range, features were categorized as 'temperature-dependent' if the Pearson correlation p-value was below 0.0014 = 0.05/35 (see 'Materials and methods' for Bonferroni correction; 'temperature-independent' is shown underlined).
Thus those on antihypertensive medication but with 'normal or prehypertensive range of BP' were categorized under stage 1 hypertension and the rest were classified under stage 2 hypertension.
According to the definition of subhealth, subjects with mental subhealth, overweight, prehypertension, pre-diabetes, serum blood lipids (triglycerides or total cholesterol) above the borderline high level, renal subhealth, hepatic subhealth or TBARS ≥ 5.09 μmol/L (based on the reference range of 95%) were categorized as subhealthy.
Scores ranging from 3 8 were categorized as "Low" paternal support, while scores of 9 15 were "Moderate to High" paternal support (i.e., an average response of "sometimes" or more frequent support for each question).
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