Search alternatives:
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
fold decrease » fold increase (Expand Search), fold increased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
fold decrease » fold increase (Expand Search), fold increased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
-
621
-
622
-
623
-
624
-
625
-
626
-
627
-
628
Image 5_Exploration of the diagnostic and prognostic roles of decreased autoantibodies in lung cancer.tif
Published 2025“…</p>Results<p>In total, 15 types of decreased autoantibodies were identified, and 6 of them were constructed into a predictive model for early lung cancer, reaching a sensitivity of 76.19% and a specificity of 55.74%. …”
-
629
-
630
-
631
-
632
-
633
-
634
S1 File -
Published 2024“…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. …”
-
635
Detailed information on field experiments.
Published 2024“…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. …”
-
636
List of symbols used in this study.
Published 2024“…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. …”
-
637
Data sources for calibration and evaluation.
Published 2024“…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. …”
-
638
Image_1_miR-144-5p and miR-451a Inhibit the Growth of Cholangiocarcinoma Cells Through Decreasing the Expression of ST8SIA4.tif
Published 2021“…This study aimed to investigate the action mechanism of miR-144-5p and miR-451a in cholangiocarcinoma. We found that miR-144-5p and miR-451a were significantly decreased in cholangiocarcinoma patient samples compared to the adjacent normal bile duct samples. …”
-
639
Image_4_miR-144-5p and miR-451a Inhibit the Growth of Cholangiocarcinoma Cells Through Decreasing the Expression of ST8SIA4.tif
Published 2021“…This study aimed to investigate the action mechanism of miR-144-5p and miR-451a in cholangiocarcinoma. We found that miR-144-5p and miR-451a were significantly decreased in cholangiocarcinoma patient samples compared to the adjacent normal bile duct samples. …”
-
640
Image_3_miR-144-5p and miR-451a Inhibit the Growth of Cholangiocarcinoma Cells Through Decreasing the Expression of ST8SIA4.tif
Published 2021“…This study aimed to investigate the action mechanism of miR-144-5p and miR-451a in cholangiocarcinoma. We found that miR-144-5p and miR-451a were significantly decreased in cholangiocarcinoma patient samples compared to the adjacent normal bile duct samples. …”