Search alternatives:
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
na decrease » a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), pa decreased (Expand Search)
ng decrease » nn decrease (Expand Search), _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
na decrease » a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), pa decreased (Expand Search)
ng decrease » nn decrease (Expand Search), _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
-
301
Detailed information on field experiments.
Published 2024“…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”
-
302
List of symbols used in this study.
Published 2024“…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”
-
303
Data sources for calibration and evaluation.
Published 2024“…The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0302098#pone.0302098.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. …”
-
304
Relationship between pattern electroretinogram and optic disc morphology in glaucoma
Published 2019“…However, in glaucoma patients, mean RNFL thickness was associated with PERG amplitude (<i>P =</i> 0.011 for P50 and 0.002 for N95).…”
-
305
-
306
-
307
-
308
-
309
-
310
-
311
-
312
-
313
-
314
-
315
-
316
-
317
-
318
-
319
-
320