EG那一句_不改了，先投出去再说

下面先给出评估，再提供去掉破折号后的三种润色版本。

评估（是否自然）

这句话整体专业、通顺，逻辑也清楚，读起来基本自然。但有几处可以更地道、更适合SCI写作的微调点：

1. “generated from heterogeneous regressions”比起generated，学术写作更常用estimated或derived；“regressions”可改为“regression equations/approaches”。
2. “mean glucose monitoring”表达略生硬，建议改为“mean glucose from monitoring (data)”。
3. “by quantiles”更常见的写法是“categorized/grouped into quantiles”或“stratified by quantiles”。
4. 结尾有多余空格（associations .），需去掉。
5. 你不喜欢破折号，用句号、分号或“Such/These choices…”承接会更稳妥。

---

去掉破折号后的三个修改版本

不添加任何缩略语的全称（保留HbA1c、HGI等）。

版本一（两句式，稳健学术口吻）
Computational choices also matter. Predicted HbA1c has been estimated using heterogeneous regression equations (e.g., fasting plasma glucose versus mean glucose from monitoring; cohort-specific versus externally calibrated equations), and HGI has been analyzed as a continuous variable, categorized into quantiles, or dichotomized. These choices can alter effect sizes, statistical significance, and even the direction of associations.

版本二（冒号引出，语义对照更紧）
Computational choices are consequential: predicted HbA1c has been derived from diverse regression approaches (e.g., fasting plasma glucose compared with mean glucose from monitoring; cohort-specific compared with externally calibrated equations), whereas HGI has been treated as continuous, grouped into quantiles, or dichotomized. Such decisions may change effect sizes, statistical significance, and even the direction of associations.

版本三（三句式，层次更分明）
In practice, computational choices matter. Predicted HbA1c has been derived using varied regression equations (e.g., fasting plasma glucose versus mean glucose from monitoring data; cohort-specific versus externally calibrated equations). HGI has been analyzed as a continuous measure, stratified by quantiles, or dichotomized, and these analytic decisions can shift effect sizes, statistical significance, and even the direction of associations.

如果你有偏好的动词（如更倾向于 estimated 还是 derived），我可以据此再统一调整。