was normalized against

USAGE SUMMARY

"was normalized against" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when you are comparing one set of data to another set of data to determine if the data is within an acceptable range. For example, "The clinical data was normalized against standards set by the American Medical Association to ensure accuracy."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Gene expression was normalized against expression of the GhEF1α gene.

Nature

CYP24A1 mRNA expression was normalized against that of housekeeping gene GAPDH.

Nature

(G) The fluorescence value of leaked FITC-dextran was normalized against the baseline (0 min) respectively.

Nature

The relative gene expression was normalized against the 18S gene expression.

Nature

The expression of eNOS was normalized against control MS1, relative eNOS staining of other groups were calculated.

Nature

NANOG expression level was normalized against GAPDH.

Protein & Cell

NANOG expression was normalized against GAPDH.

Protein & Cell

Gene expression was normalized against eEF1a as an internal control.

Rice

The intensity was normalized against the absorption at 1,070 cm−1.

Nanoscale Research Letters

The fold change in expression was normalized against the expression of the housekeeping gene GAPDH (Hs99999905_m1).

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics

The expression of each gene was normalized against that of the glyceraldehyde dehydrogenase gene (gpdA).

AMB Express

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was normalized against", clearly define what baseline or control you are normalizing to. This enhances clarity and reproducibility.

Common error

Avoid using "was normalized" without specifying what it was normalized against. This creates ambiguity and makes your data difficult to interpret.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was normalized against" functions as a passive voice construction indicating that a dataset or measurement has been adjusted relative to a reference point or control. As shown by Ludwig, this adjustment is often used to facilitate comparisons or account for variations.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

100%

Less common in

News & Media

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Academia

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "was normalized against" is a grammatically correct and common phrase used primarily in scientific writing to describe the process of adjusting data relative to a reference point. As shown by Ludwig, its purpose is to enable accurate comparisons or account for variations. The phrase carries a formal tone, and it's crucial to specify the baseline for clarity. Common alternatives include phrases like "was adjusted relative to" or "was standardized to", but "was normalized against" maintains its place as a clear and precise way to communicate data standardization procedures.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was adjusted relative to

Emphasizes the act of adjustment in relation to a specific standard or value.

was calibrated against

Highlights the process of calibration to ensure accuracy and consistency.

was standardized to

Focuses on the creation of a standard for comparison.

was corrected for

Highlights the removal of bias or error using a specific factor.

was referenced to

Implies a comparison against a specific reference point.

was balanced against

Suggests an effort to equalize or counteract differences.

was compared with

Indicates a direct comparison between datasets or values.

was benchmarked against

Focuses on evaluating performance against a standard of excellence.

was controlled for

Emphasizes the process of maintaining constancy for a variable.

was proportioned to

Suggests an effort to scale something relative to a constant.

FAQs

What does it mean when data "was normalized against" something?

When data "was normalized against" a particular value or dataset, it means that the data has been adjusted to account for differences or variations, allowing for a more accurate comparison. This often involves dividing the data by a reference value or adjusting for confounding variables.

How to use "was normalized against" in a sentence?

You can use "was normalized against" to explain how a dataset has been adjusted for comparison. For example, "Gene expression "was normalized against" a housekeeping gene to account for variations in RNA quantity".

What are some alternatives to "was normalized against"?

Alternatives include "was adjusted relative to", "was standardized to", or "was corrected for depending on the specific context".

Why is it important to state what data "was normalized against"?

Stating what data "was normalized against" is crucial for transparency and reproducibility. It allows others to understand the data processing steps and evaluate the validity of the comparison.