were not detected

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "were not detected" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you want to indicate that something was not found or identified, often in scientific, technical, or analytical discussions. Example: "In the experiment, certain anomalies were not detected during the initial analysis."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Higher homologues were not detected.

Geochemical Transactions

Proteinaceous materials were not detected.

Heritage Science

Sulfide concentrations were not detected.

Applied Water Science

Between group differences were not detected.

Burns

Serum IgG antibodies were not detected.

Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications

Carotenoids were not detected in all oleoresins.

Journal of Food Composition and Analysis

Nine other antibiotics were not detected.

Science of The Total Environment

Non-targeted pathogens were not detected.

Journal of Virological Methods

Virulence-associated genes were not detected.

Journal of Hospital Infection

Biological faults were not detected in general.

Biosystems Engineering

Meningeal irritation signs were not detected.

International Journal of Emergency Medicine

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "were not detected" in scientific writing, always specify the method or instrument used for detection to provide context and credibility.

Common error

Ensure clarity by explicitly stating what "were not detected". Avoid vague sentences like "Issues were not detected" without specifying which issues or during what process.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "were not detected" functions as a statement of absence. It indicates that something was not found or identified using a particular method or instrument. Ludwig AI confirms its correct usage in numerous scientific contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

100%

Less common in

News & Media

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Academia

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "were not detected" is a common and grammatically correct expression primarily used in scientific and technical writing to report the absence of a substance, signal, or phenomenon. As Ludwig AI confirms, this phrase is frequently used in research to convey negative findings or the lack of expected results. When using this phrase, it's important to provide context by specifying the detection method and clearly stating what "were not detected" to avoid ambiguity. Alternatives like "were not identified" or "were not found" can be used depending on the specific nuance you wish to convey.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

were not identified

Focuses on the lack of identification of something.

were not found

Emphasizes the absence of something being located.

were not observed

Highlights the lack of visual or sensory confirmation.

were not noticed

Suggests a failure to perceive something.

remained undetected

Indicates that something stayed hidden or unnoticed over a period of time.

escaped detection

Implies an active avoidance or evasion of being detected.

were unobservable

Highlights an intrinsic inability to observe something.

were imperceptible

Emphasizes that something was too subtle to be detected.

showed no presence

Focuses on the absence of a substance or entity.

yielded negative results

Indicates that tests or analyses did not reveal the presence of something.

FAQs

How can I rephrase "were not detected" in a scientific paper?

Depending on the context, you could use alternatives such as "were not identified", "were not found", or "were not observed".

Is it appropriate to use "were not detected" in formal writing?

Yes, "were not detected" is suitable for formal writing, especially in scientific, technical, and analytical contexts. It clearly indicates the absence of something according to specific methods.

What does it mean when something "were not detected"?

It signifies that, based on the methods and instruments used, a particular substance, signal, or phenomenon was not found or identified. The absence doesn't necessarily mean it's not there, but that it fell outside the scope or sensitivity of the detection method.

What's the difference between "were not detected" and "were not identified"?

While similar, "were not detected" focuses on the failure to find something through specific methods, whereas "were not identified" implies a failure to classify or recognize something that may have been present but unrecognizable.