Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(9)
Open image in new window Fig. 1 Mean subjective score for low workload level (LWL) and high workload level (HWL) with standard error as error bar (±1SE) a and b for control and experimental groups, respectively.
A borderline statistically significantly reduced score for low left-hand function was also observed in the highest right hand function stratum.
We used the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for low back pain and leg pain as outcome measures in the RCT.
A cutoff value of the probability that maximized sensitivity and specificity was 0.17, this corresponds to a cutoff value of >104 in the risk score for low IQ (sum of the weights of each predictor).
Among patients hospitalized with sepsis in sub-Saharan Africa, a prognostic index incorporating vital signs data with less segmentation in the values of included variables and giving no score for low values of respiratory and pulse rates adequately predicted mortality.
To develop a risk score for low back pain in office workers, scores were then assigned to each variable, which resulted in a range from 0 to 14 (Table 3).
Similar(50)
The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in UK primary care offers potential for developing a standardized morbidity score for low-risk populations.
As can be seen in Fig. 5, while all three parameters show limited correlation with Gleason score for low-grade tumors, they all show a dramatic increase at Gleason score 4 + 3.
Mean VAS score for low-back pain improved significantly at 1 year follow-up from 7.3 at baseline to 2.75 (p < 0.001) in Group 1 and from 6.7 to 1.5 (p = 0.001) in Group 2. VAS score at 1 year showed significant improvements in 21 Group 1 patients versus 30 Group 2 patients (p = 0.001).
In addition, the mean VAS score for low-risk respondents was significantly higher than the mean score for the high-risk group (p < 0.001).
The mean index score for low-risk respondents was significantly higher than the mean for the high-risk group (p < 0.001).
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