English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is a bullet point in a presentation:

Coronary angiography is a poor predictor of the hemodynamic relevance of stenosis

"is a poor predictor of" feels very round-about, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it. Is there one?

The phrase is meant in the sense of "is not a good method to decide".

share|improve this question
is a poor predictor of is a standard phrase in the jargon of science writing. Are you addressing a lay or professional audience? – Useless Mar 21 '14 at 19:06
I would say stick with what you have, it's (as Useless says) pretty much the standard. – Kevin Mar 21 '14 at 19:09
Hi Curtis, you're absolutely right! "Predictor" is used in this context in my field and all of your suggestions have the same meaning. I'm looking for a shorter way to express it. – Zanahoria Mar 21 '14 at 19:09
@Zanahoria: I don't understand what you want here. You've been told poor predictor of * is standard phrasing in this context, and if you have some objection to that you've already used the expression *only weakly related in a comment. How much shorter do do expect some alternative to be? – FumbleFingers Mar 21 '14 at 19:13
In that case, it will probably be easier for your audience to parse the standard phrase they're already familiar with, than any substitute you find (even if the replacement is shorter or otherwise better). – Useless Mar 21 '14 at 19:14

In this context, I assume you are trying to say that once stenosis has been diagnosed, then the determination whether hemodynamics plays a significant role cannot be established by coronary angiography.

I would suggest:

Coronary angiography is an inadequate indicator of the hemodynamic relevance of stenosis.


Coronary angiography is not germane to the hemodynamic relevance of stenosis.


Coronary angiography is unsuitable for establishing the hemodynamic relevance of stenosis.

None of these are shorter (less round-about in a sense), but they may be more to the point.

share|improve this answer

"Poorly predicts" or "poorly correlates with" would work. "Has low specificity for" would also be good. What you have is fine for a "bullet point," but I suspect you want something more concise because of space or to keep it on a single line on a PowerPoint slide. There are probably other options. "Variably correlates" also sounds good, and is the most accurate I suspect.

share|improve this answer
+1 for dropping "is", which leads to the unwieldiness. I think I would go for "weakly predicts" over "poorly predicts" though. – badroit Mar 21 '14 at 20:21
"Weakly predicts" and "poorly predicts" have different meanings, though. I would interpret the former as having statistical significance but low average or marginal effects, whereas the latter indicates a lack of statistical significance altogether. – user2310967less Mar 21 '14 at 23:00

'Is unrelated to' would fill the bill.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. It isn't unrelated though, just weakly related. And "is weakly related to" would be as long as "is a poor predictor of" – Zanahoria Mar 21 '14 at 18:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.