Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significant 17 » significant _ (Expand Search), significant co (Expand Search), significant anti (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significant 17 » significant _ (Expand Search), significant co (Expand Search), significant anti (Expand Search)
-
1841
-
1842
-
1843
-
1844
-
1845
-
1846
Antihypertensive treatment of 151 T2DM patients with hypertension at different subgroups.
Published 2025Subjects: -
1847
-
1848
-
1849
-
1850
-
1851
-
1852
-
1853
-
1854
-
1855
-
1856
-
1857
Preference for the EIA – conjoint results.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
1858
Marginal means – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
1859
Sample attribute table.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
1860
Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation.
Published 2025“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”