was noted with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was noted with" is not correct in standard written English.
It is typically used incorrectly when trying to convey that something was observed or acknowledged, but the preposition "with" is not appropriate in this context. Example: "The error was noted with concern." (should be "noted with concern" or "noted as a concern").

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

Science

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

This was noted with feigned alarm, but she ignored it all.

The New Yorker

No significance was noted with other midline structures.

Progress in Orthodontics

Furthermore, insignificant influence was noted with the oil saturation profile.

Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

No consistent trend in pH was noted with the seasons.

Geochemical Transactions

A positive association was noted with female gender.

International Journal of Bipolar Disorders

None such relation was noted with other biomarkers.

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Increased wave amplitude was noted with the new montages in 90 of 105 (85.7%) individuals.

Pediatric Neurology

Comparing the three incisions, less pain and less bleed was noted with use of electrocautery.

Journal of Surgical Research

Increased EGFP and BMP-2 production was noted with the RhMLV promoter.

Molecular Therapy

Retrobulbar hemorrhage was noted with mild (2-3 mm) proptosis of the left globe.

International Journal of Emergency Medicine

On examination, abdominal tenderness was noted with no associated guarding or peritonism.

Gynecological Surgery

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Avoid using "was noted with" in formal writing. Opt for more precise and grammatically sound alternatives like "was observed in conjunction with" or "was found to correlate with".

Common error

A frequent mistake is using "with" after "noted" when describing an observation. Instead of "was noted with", consider restructuring the sentence to use "was noted alongside", "was noted in conjunction with" or choose a different verb altogether, such as "observed".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was noted with" is often intended to function as a passive observation, indicating that something was noticed or recorded in connection with something else. However, as Ludwig AI points out, this construction is generally considered grammatically incorrect.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

79%

News & Media

12%

Formal & Business

9%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "was noted with" is frequently used, especially within scientific and news contexts, it's grammatically incorrect. Ludwig AI underscores the importance of opting for more precise and grammatically sound alternatives such as "was observed in conjunction with", "was identified alongside", or structuring sentences differently to avoid the incorrect prepositional usage. Given its prevalent misuse, careful attention should be paid to ensure grammatical correctness and clarity in writing. When aiming for formal or polished writing, it's advisable to avoid "was noted with" and select the proposed alternatives, like for example /s/was+observed+in+conjunction+with.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was observed in conjunction with

Replaces 'noted' with 'observed' and adds 'in conjunction with' to emphasize simultaneous occurrence.

was identified alongside

Uses 'identified' instead of 'noted' and 'alongside' to indicate simultaneous discovery or presence.

was found in association with

Employs 'found' and 'in association with' to denote a discovered relationship or correlation.

was detected together with

Substitutes 'noted' with 'detected' and 'together with' to emphasize simultaneous detection.

was seen in combination with

Replaces 'noted' with 'seen' and 'in combination with' to specify simultaneous observation.

was recognized along with

Uses 'recognized' instead of 'noted' and 'along with' to denote simultaneous recognition.

was recorded concurrently with

Employs 'recorded' and 'concurrently with' to indicate simultaneous documentation or notation.

was established to coexist with

Substitutes 'noted' with 'established' and 'to coexist with' to express a confirmed simultaneous existence.

was determined to accompany

Replaces 'noted' with 'determined' and 'to accompany' to signify a confirmed simultaneous presence.

was ascertained to correlate with

Uses 'ascertained' and 'to correlate with' to denote a confirmed correlation between the subjects.

FAQs

Is "was noted with" grammatically correct?

No, "was noted with" is generally considered grammatically incorrect. It's better to use phrases like "was observed in conjunction with" or /s/was+identified+alongside.

What are some alternatives to "was noted with" in scientific writing?

In scientific writing, you can use alternatives such as /s/was+observed+with, "was identified alongside", or /s/was+found+in+association+with to maintain precision.

How can I rephrase a sentence that uses "was noted with" to improve clarity?

Rephrase the sentence to clearly indicate the relationship between the observed elements. For example, instead of "The increase was noted with the new method", try "The increase was observed when using the new method" or /s/the+new+method+resulted+in+an+increase.

What's the difference between "was noted with" and "was observed with"?

"Was observed with" is a more grammatically sound alternative to "was noted with". While both suggest observation, "observed" is typically followed by a description of what was seen, while "noted" requires restructuring the sentence to avoid the incorrect preposition use. Using "was observed with" focuses on the direct act of seeing something, compared to "was noted with" which is considered incorrect by Ludwig.