0
Wholegrain Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Why "analysis" instead of "analyses"?
In Tables 1 and 2, few studies have controlled for dietary factors in their analyses of salt consumption, which makes it difficult to compare the different studies according to the dietary variables adjusted in the analysis. However, the study results that were adjusted by a wide range of potentially confounding variables, such as age, sex, H pylori infection, atrophic gastritis, medical history of peptic ulcer, family history of cancer, body mass index, diabetes, total cholesterol, physical activity, alcohol intake, smoking habit and other dietary factors[68], showed no difference from the crude results.
Top answer
It appears to me that this is an analysis of previously performed analyses -- a sort of review of other analyses. The main analysis attempts to analyze these analyses, for example, by adjusting the results of the analyses in an attempt to make them all comparable. The conclusion of the analysis is that the adjustment of the analyses being reviewed was probably unnecessary because no new or different information was obtained by these adjustments.
- It appears to me that this is an analysis of previously performed analyses -- a sort of review of other analyses.
- The main analysis attempts to analyze these analyses, for example, by adjusting the results of the analyses in an attempt to make them all comparable.
- The conclusion of the analysis is that the adjustment of the analyses being reviewed was probably unnecessary because no new or different information was obtained by these adjustments.
- CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
It appears to me that this is an analysis of previously performed analyses -- a sort of review of other analyses.
The main analysis attempts to analyze these analyses, for example, by adjusting the results of the analyses in an attempt to make them all comparable. The conclusion of the analysis is that the adjustment of the analyses being reviewed was probably unnecessary because no new
The main analysis attempts to analyze these analyses, for example, by adjusting the results of the analyses in an attempt to make them all comparable. The conclusion of the analysis is that the adjustment of the analyses being reviewed was probably unnecessary because no new
00
But I don't know what analysis they are referring to. Here's the whole paragraph:
Moreover, it may be difficult to separate the effects
of salt from other nutrients that may contribute to
stomach cancer risk. The absence of adjustment for
confounding factors (such as age, ***, smoking and
dietary habit) can hamper the statistical estimation
causing over- or underestim
Moreover, it may be difficult to separate the effects
of salt from other nutrients that may contribute to
stomach cancer risk. The absence of adjustment for
confounding factors (such as age, ***, smoking and
dietary habit) can hamper the statistical estimation
causing over- or underestim
00
0
I don't really know. It's a puzzle.
Maybe it should be taken as
which makes it difficult to compare the different studies according to the dietary variables adjusted in the [analysis process / analytical process].
Maybe others will have a better explanation.
CJ
Maybe it should be taken as
which makes it difficult to compare the different studies according to the dietary variables adjusted in the [analysis process / analytical process].
Maybe others will have a better explanation.
CJ
00
0
I think it's an error. You can't adjust variables in a scientifical review because they don't have all the data; however, researchers can do it for individual research. It says "adjusted in the analysis", it's the stage of a research where we adjust certain raw data considering other raw data.
00
Ah wait, no. I can't believe this, but they said the analysis when they did not name it before.
00
i think the author meant researches after all, because it doesn't make sense if he says "the" if he did not mention it before or after.
00
I now think that "the analysis" meant the analysis of the 68th cited research. I can't believe this. You were right after all--well sort of. However, I don't know why you can say "the something" when the something is only precised in the references, which is nonsense to me.
0
Related Questions