Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
Internal consistency of the tool using the original scoring method and including all 25 subscale items was α = 0.78 (subscales: Function α = 0.52, Symptoms α = 0.41, Interpersonal α = 0.67, Well being α = 0.49, Transcendent α = 0.54).
Using the original scoring method, older people had worse scores on physical functioning, role physical, role emotional but better scores on mental functioning and general health than the younger group.
Using the original scoring of 1 to 5 for each question meant that the index would have a potential range from 10to5050, with a midpoint of 30.
We used principal component analysis with Varimax rotation to extract factors from the seven items pertaining to secondhand effects using the original scoring from 1 to 5. To decide what factors to retain we used the Kaiser's criteria (eigenvalue>1 rule), the cumulative percentage of variance extracted, and interpretability of the extracted factors.
Using the WORMS system BMLs predicted site-specific cartilage volume loss at the medial femoral, and lateral tibial sites (β -50.1 to -122.1, all P < 0.05); whereas, using the original scoring system BMLs also predicted cartilage volume loss at the lateral femoral site (Table 3).
Using the original scoring system BMLs predicted site-specific defect increases at all four sites (Table 2); whereas, using the WORMS system BMLs predicted site-specific defect increases at the medial femoral, lateral tibial, and lateral femoral sites (OR 2.9 to 13.7, all P < 0.05).
Similar(54)
Morris, using the original score, has changed it back.
Yeah, instead of using the original score.
It is important to note that the transformation done on the leg score traits in this study did not change the identified QTL regions since the interval mapping results for these traits using the original score ranging from 1-5 or the scale 0-2 were the same.
The study used the original scoring method.
Throughout the analyses we use the original scoring system for the MVQOLI in order to ensure data are comparable with other studies utilising the tool.
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