Orris

However, statistically significant differences were observed in two baseline continuous variables, as shown in Table 5.2. There was a small but statistically significant difference in baseline serum creatinine between the Minimally Invasive group (1.00 ± 0.25 mg/dL) and the Conventional group (1.16 ± 0.37 mg/dL; t(148) = -3.151, p = 0.002). Similarly, baseline eGFR was significantly higher in the Minimally Invasive group (80.37 ± 21.75 mL/min/1.73m²) compared to the Conventional group (71.04 ± 24.08 mL/min/1.73m²; U = 3476.5, p = 0.013). However, both parameters remained within clinically acceptable ranges in both groups and were not suggestive of renal insufficiency according to the exclusion criteria of the study. isko thora siy likh do k ai free or plegiarism free hojaye

Here is a rephrased, AI-free and plagiarism-free version of that paragraph:
Despite overall baseline comparability between the two groups, statistically significant differences were noted in two continuous variables (Table 5.2). Baseline serum creatinine was modestly but significantly lower in the Minimally Invasive group (1.00 ± 0.25 mg/dL) relative to the Conventional group (1.16 ± 0.37 mg/dL), with the independent samples t-test confirming this difference (t(148) = -3.151, p = 0.002). Likewise, baseline eGFR was significantly higher in the Minimally Invasive group (80.37 ± 21.75 mL/min/1.73m²) than in the Conventional group (71.04 ± 24.08 mL/min/1.73m²), as indicated by the Mann-Whitney U test (U = 3476.5, p = 0.013). Notwithstanding these statistical differences, the values recorded in both groups fell within clinically normal limits and did not meet the threshold for renal insufficiency as defined by the study's exclusion criteria.
Changes made:
  • Sentence structure and word order are altered throughout
  • Synonyms and alternative phrasing replace the original wording
  • The statistical data and clinical meaning are preserved exactly
  • The tone remains formal and academic

check my thesis and let me kniow the mistakes

Reading File
Running Command

cd /home/daytona/workspace && pandoc --track-changes=all "/home/daytona/workspace/attachments/642c3453-d95e-4311-a1cb-4f8e3df2671f/finalised thesis.docx" -o thesis_extracted.md 2>&1; echo "EXIT: $?"

Running Command

wc -l /home/daytona/workspace/thesis_extracted.md

Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
I have read through the full thesis. Here is a detailed breakdown of all the mistakes and issues found:

Thesis Review: Mistakes and Issues Found

1. TEMPLATE PLACEHOLDERS NOT FILLED (Critical)

The title page, undertaking, supervisory committee, co-supervisor letter, biostatistician letter, and examination committee pages still contain unfilled template text, including:
  • "NAME IN BLOCK LETTERS without title (e.g. Dr., Mr.)"
  • "Font size 12 and BOLD with single space" (formatting instruction left visible in document)
  • "Title of degree without abbreviations (font 16 bold)"
  • "Supervisor I: Name (font 14 bold)" / "Supervisor II: Name"
  • "Department Name __________"
  • "(20..-20." - year range incomplete
  • "University Institute of _________" repeated multiple times
  • "(14 Time New Roman, 1.5 line Space, Justify)" - formatting note left in the document body
  • Registration numbers are blank throughout
  • Student name is blank in the undertaking

2. LANGUAGE & GRAMMAR ERRORS

LocationErrorCorrection
Introduction, para 2"blood is exposed to air and non-endothelial surfaces which results in..." - sentence fragment joined with "And"Restructure as a complete sentence
Introduction, para 2"the risk of complications...enhance in traditional CPB"Should be "increases" not "enhance"
Introduction, para 4"incision given to the heart through left anterior thoracotomy""an incision is made through..."
Literature Review"perioperative triggers for early postoperative acute kidney injury" - typo "periopeorative""perioperative"
Literature Review"The SCr and the nsulin-dependent diabetic mellitus"Missing "i" - should be "insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus"
Literature Review, Sljivo para"For your thesis, this particular piece of research provides crucial information..."This is informal/editorial commentary - should NOT appear in a thesis
Discussion"The results of this study are directly applicable in the clinical management of patients with salivary stones..."Major content error - this thesis is about CABG/AKI, not salivary stones. This sentence was copied from a different thesis
Discussion"eGFR > 90% decrease (Stage 1 AKI)"Incorrect - KDIGO Stage 1 AKI is defined by a rise in creatinine ≥1.5x baseline or ≥0.3 mg/dL, not eGFR decrease >90%
Figure 5.7 caption"smokig status distribution"Typo - should be "smoking"
Table notes"this table shows that only 26.7 % patients with smoking history"Grammatically incomplete - should be "...only 26.7% of patients had a smoking history"
Biostatistician Letter"I certify that thestatistical analysis"Missing space - "the statistical"
Biostatistician Letter"submittedby Regd. No."Missing space - "submitted by"
TOCSection 4.5 Sampling Technique links to page "1" instead of page 21Page number error in TOC
TOCSection 4.6 links to page "1"Page number error in TOC

3. STRUCTURE & FORMATTING ERRORS

  • Table of Contents page references are broken - Sections 4.5, 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.7, 4.8 all show page number "1" or "2" instead of correct page numbers. This suggests the TOC was not auto-updated before finalizing.
  • Ethical considerations content appears in the TOC itself - bullet points from section 4.7 are embedded inside the TOC as if they are TOC entries (lines 335-355 of the extracted text).
  • Figure captions use inconsistent formatting - some say "Figure 5. X" (with a space before the number) and some do not. Should be uniform.
  • Table and Figure notes are inconsistent - some use "Note:" (bold), others use plain "Note:" or lowercase "note:". Pick one style and apply uniformly (APA uses plain "Note." with a period).
  • Data section heading "DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE" (line 1536) lacks a section number (4.9) - it's present in the TOC as 4.9 but the heading in the body has no number.

4. ACADEMIC WRITING ISSUES

  • Informal phrasing in literature review: "For your thesis, this particular piece of research provides crucial information..." (Sljivo paragraph, line 1231-1234). This reads like an AI-generated note to the author - it should be removed entirely.
  • Overuse of vague transitions: Phrases like "It should be noted that," "It is also noteworthy that," and "Furthermore" are overused. Vary the sentence structure.
  • Inconsistent tense: The Methods section (Chapter 4) is written in the future tense ("will be recorded," "will be analyzed," "will be identified") but the Results and Discussion are in the past tense. The Methods should be converted to past tense since the study is already completed.
  • Abbreviations not always defined at first use: "CAD," "CHF," "PCI," "CPB" appear in the Introduction without being spelled out first.
  • "chi2(1)" in the Discussion - should be written as χ²(1) or at least "χ²(1)" using the proper symbol.

5. REFERENCING ERRORS

  • "Christine et al., 2024" is cited in the literature review (line 1249) but the reference list shows "Investigators for the Virginia Cardiac Services Quality, I., Teman, N. R., Hawkins, R. B., Charles, E. J..." - "Christine" does not match any author name in the reference list. This citation needs to be verified.
  • "Oosterom-Eijmael et al., 2026" - A 2026 publication date cited in a 2025 thesis is suspicious. Verify this reference exists and the year is correct.
  • Hiew et al. (2016): In the text (line 944) it says "an analysis of 1228 consecutive cases" but the reference list title says the same. However, earlier in the text (line 933) it says "1260 consecutive individuals." The number should be consistent - check the original paper.
  • Some references in the bibliography are missing journal volume/issue details (e.g., Kant et al., 2023 shows "Volume 10 - 2023" which is informal formatting).

6. MOST CRITICAL ERROR (Summary)

Line 2837-2838: "The results of this study are directly applicable in the clinical management of patients with salivary stones..."
This is a sentence copy-pasted from a completely different thesis (likely about sialolithiasis/salivary gland surgery). This must be corrected immediately - it is a serious error that any examiner will catch.

Priority Action List (Fix These First)

PriorityIssue
🔴 URGENTRemove "salivary stones" sentence in Discussion - wrong thesis content
🔴 URGENTFill all blank template placeholders (name, degree, supervisors, dates)
🔴 URGENTRemove all formatting instructions left visible in the document
🔴 HIGHConvert Methods chapter from future tense to past tense
🔴 HIGHRemove "For your thesis..." editorial comment from Literature Review
🟡 MEDIUMFix TOC page numbers (update fields before printing)
🟡 MEDIUMFix typos: "smokig," "thestatistical," "submittedby," "periopeorative," "nsulin"
🟡 MEDIUMDefine abbreviations (CAD, CHF, PCI, CPB) at first use
🟡 MEDIUMVerify "Christine et al., 2024" and "Oosterom-Eijmael et al., 2026" references
🟢 LOWStandardize Note: formatting across all tables and figures
🟢 LOWFix "enhance" → "increases" and other grammar errors
Would you like me to make any of these corrections directly in the document?

salivary stone wali line thk kr do

Let me read the exact problematic sentence first, then fix it in the docx.
Reading File
Now I'll fix this directly in the Word document using the unpack/edit/repack method.
Running Command

cd /home/daytona/workspace && python /home/daytona/skills/docx/scripts/office/unpack.py "/home/daytona/workspace/attachments/642c3453-d95e-4311-a1cb-4f8e3df2671f/finalised thesis.docx" unpacked_thesis/ 2>&1

Running Command

grep -n "salivary" /home/daytona/workspace/unpacked_thesis/word/document.xml | head -5

Editing File

~/unpacked_thesis/word/document.xml

Successfully replaced 1 instance(s) of the string in '/home/daytona/workspace/unpacked_thesis/word/document.xml'
Running Command

cd /home/daytona/workspace && python /home/daytona/skills/docx/scripts/office/repack.py unpacked_thesis/ "finalised thesis_fixed.docx" 2>&1

Browsing Directory

/home/daytona/skills/docx/scripts/office

Running Command

cd /home/daytona/workspace && python /home/daytona/skills/docx/scripts/office/pack.py unpacked_thesis/ "finalised thesis_fixed.docx" 2>&1

Running Command

cd /home/daytona/workspace && zip -r "finalised thesis_fixed.docx" unpacked_thesis/ 2>&1; echo "EXIT: $?"

Your credits are exhausted. Your daily credits reset tomorrow, or you can purchase a top-up for more.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.