Exact(3)
The time since participants' most recent HIV test was categorized as within 1 year; 1 to 2 years; and 3 or more years; persons with no prior HIV test comprised the reference group.
The outcome of the test was categorized into normal and suspected delay groups based on the child's level of ability to perform a given task.
The final score obtained in each test was categorized using age-specific deciles based on 5-year age intervals 35-399, 45-49, 4559, 60-64, 60-649, 60-64).
Similar(57)
For this study, questions from an AEP listening test were categorized as assessing either local or global comprehension skills.
Timed results from each test were categorized into 5-level variables ranging from 0 (worst performers) to 4 (best performers) according to well-established cut-points[ 5].
The results of the TUG test were categorized using a cut-off value of 11 seconds, based on a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis.
Subjects reporting any of these symptoms in the preceding year were categorized as "previous OI" and those who experienced symptoms or signs during the OH test were categorized as "present OI".
For analysis, results on the lock and key test were categorized into quartiles, and range of motion of the shoulders and flexion of the hips and knees were dichotomized as either full or not, with full as the reference group.
Second, quantitative G6PD activity results for the reference test were categorized following WHO guidelines as normal or deficient using as cutoff point of 60% of the median activity observed in the corresponding population.
Of these 270 samples (153 in 2002 and 117 in 2003), 42 samples, which were initially identified by using the TeSeE test, were categorized by AFSSA as atypical due to lack of confirmation by other rapid tests or World Organization for Animal Health modified SAF immunoblot (AFSSA, no. 2004-SA-0045) (34 ).
Knowledge of HIV testing was categorized as low or high knowledge using mean value of 2.0.
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