Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
For each subject, odds ratios for risk factors were added to define an individual overall risk score.
Sometimes when you try to approach a touchy subject, odds are you're not going to get the answer you'd like.
Similar(58)
Among the case patients, 59% had ≥2 positive test results versus 2.4% of control subjects (odds ratio, 56.5; 95% CI, 7.1-451.7).
Ninety-three percent of case patients had at least 1 positive test result versus 34% of control subjects (odds ratio, 24.0; 95% CI, 6.4-93.4).
For spontaneous preterm birth at <35 weeks gestation, any 2 positive tests identified 43% of cases and 6% of control <span class="lh lhl">subjects (odds ratio, 11.2; 95% CI, 4.8-26.2).
With the use of only the 3 serum tests (alkaline phosphatase, α-fetoprotein, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), any positive test identified 81% of cases versus 22% of control subjects (odds ratio, 14.7; 95% CI, 5.0-42.7).
In the eight studies that reported an overall risk, the risk of congenital malformations in offspring of women who were exposed to aspirin was not significantly higher than that in control subjects (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.94-1.89).
Results: Over a mean follow-up period of 3.1 years presence of a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 was associated with a nonsignificant 17% increase in the odds for any adenoma recurrence among all subjects (odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 1.48).
Most importantly, a significantly higher percentage of control subjects (8.9%) had very high MCP-1 levels (defined as above the 99th percentile value in patients, 955 ng/ml) compared to 1% of the T1D subjects (odds ratio = 0.11, p<10−33).
Subjects with severe sepsis were more likely to have endothelial dysfunction than control subjects (odds ratio (OR) 9.4, 95% CI: 3.5 to 25.0).
The frequency of subcortical infarctions was 39% in case subjects and 29% in control subjects (odds ratio 1.59 [95% CI 0.91 2.75]).
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