Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(1)
A participatory wealth-ranking approach was used to categorize sample households into various wealth categories.
Similar(59)
Standard clinical lab cut-off points were used to categorize samples as positive or negative.
Standard clinical lab cutoff points were used to categorize samples as positive or negative.
This information was used to categorize samples into a second scheme consisting of conventional samples from companies with (n = 59) and without (n = 46) stated policies prohibiting arsenical use.
As the frequency of the percentage of positively stained cells in all tumor samples assessed for H3K27me3 was almost normally distributed and ranged from 0%to100%0% and the median value was 50%, a 50% cut-off value was used to, categorize samples into high and low expression levels [ 16, 17].
A participatory wealth-ranking method was used to categorize the sampled households into three poverty levels: poor, middle and rich.
This produces a tree-like construct (known as a decision tree) that, after being optimized, can be used to categorize new samples.
The differences can be explained on the basis of BMI and WHR cutoffs used to categorize obesity, ethnicity, sample size, and behavioral and environmental factors.
Further categorization based on histological analysis of lymph node was further used to categorize the tumor samples into two subgroups referred as: i) without lymph node metastasis [MC-BMT, n = 19; MC, n = 10] and ii) with lymph node metastasis [MC-BMT, n = 12; MC, n = 10].
Although our study differed from the animal studies because we measured adult and not gestational exposure, our findings suggesting that a single urine sample, used to categorize a subject's exposure, did not adequately measure 3-month average exposure to MEHP.
The surrogate category analysis indicated that when a single sample was used to categorize exposure into quartiles, the quartile mean values increased monotonically only 14 51% of the time (Table 3).
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