Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(4)
Articles that were no longer clinically relevant were removed.
Titles of the papers were screened and those deemed not relevant were removed (n = 464).
The titles and abstracts of the articles were then examined and reports that were not randomised studies and those that were not relevant were removed.
Search terms entered into each database are presented in table 1. Titles of identified papers were screened by one reviewer (LS) and those with titles not deemed relevant were removed.
Similar(56)
Scans were manually inspected, and clinically relevant infarcts were removed.
Relevant sequences were removed, leaving 339 sequences for analysis.
Two of the questions were not relevant, and were removed from the list.
The whole section "Mechanistic model of commitment and deferral" and the relevant subsections were removed.
Among the genes found to be statistically overexpressed with a fold change ≥ 2 in a given population, those with 100% absent call in this population were considered not to be biologically relevant and were removed.
Both "chores inside the house" and "difficulty climbing stairs" are examples of items that are intuitively relevant which were removed based on corroborating arguments from different sources (statistics and qualitative studies).
However, it would appear that the caller's perception of the volunteers' expert status was important, with its inter-relationship with other factors causing its elimination early in the process, with it being important in explaining satisfaction only being detectable once other less relevant terms were removed.
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