unremarkable vs. nothing abnormal (discovered)

09:00 May 26, 2016 

One frequent example is when a healthy person undergoes a thorough physical examination. Most boxes in the report form would be filled as "unremarkable", but there may be anatomic features that are somewhat different from a textbook description. Such features won't cause any problems to a live person, yet they may help identify a dead body, and it's forensic medical examiners who pay the greatest deal of attention to them. I think quite a few of us have heard a doctor say something to the tune of "You have a XXX, but don't worry, it's normal" - this is not unremarkable.

08:31 May 26, 2016 

in my target language, doctors would also use either "unremarkable" or several different latinisms or greekisms. therefore, I would follow the source in most cases (although always being aware of the context), so with greekism in source (abnormal) I would choose a greekism in target. from linguistic point of view, synonyms exist for a reason.

in my language, options would be, eg:

"uredan" .... vs. "bez anomalija"

08:18 May 26, 2016 

doctors clearly differentiate between the two terms. In most cases I suspect they do not. Both need to be understood in the context of their actual use. A patient may have cancer, but many medical tests would still yield unremarkable or normal results, although the patient is seriously ill. It is important to remember that both terms generally refer to a specific test or exam, but not to the patient's overall condition. So at that level they are indeed generally interchangeable.

05:39 May 26, 2016 

I like Lingua's reference. For all intents and purposes it means normal, but with the proviso that there may be insignificant abnormalities that have no practical bearing.

20:08 May 25, 2016 

There is no difference in my opinion.

19:32 May 25, 2016 

I'd like to know if the two can be/are used interchangeably. Or maybe UK vs. US?