Search alternatives:
ng decrease » nn decrease (Expand Search), _ decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
a mean » _ mean (Expand Search)
69 a » 19 a (Expand Search), 69 0 (Expand Search), 6 a (Expand Search)
ng decrease » nn decrease (Expand Search), _ decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
a mean » _ mean (Expand Search)
69 a » 19 a (Expand Search), 69 0 (Expand Search), 6 a (Expand Search)
-
141
-
142
-
143
-
144
-
145
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. …”
-
146
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. …”
-
147
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. …”
-
148
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. …”
-
149
Incidence rates for selected health outcomes.
Published 2024“…</p><p>Results</p><p>The city-wide mean total NO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub> concentrations were 37.88 μg/m<sup>3</sup> (range: 19.61–52.17 μg/m<sup>3</sup>) and 21.68 μg/m<sup>3</sup> (range: 17.33–26.69 μg/m<sup>3</sup>), respectively, of which 7% (range: 2–36%) and 1% (range: 0–7%) were port-sourced, respectively. …”
-
150
A summary of the included study characteristics.
Published 2025“…There is no significant difference one month after NSPT in diabetic patients (SMD: -5.83, 95%CI: -15.5, 3.83, p = 0.237, I-square, 97.4%, random effects model, n = 2), but three (SMD: -2.44, 95%CI: -3.37, -1.15, p = 0.001, I-square, 75.9%, random effects model, n = 3) and six months (SMD: -2.41, 95%CI: -3.81, -1.01, p = 0.001, I-square, 78.7%, random effects model, n = 2) after the treatment, a significant decrease is observed in the mean GCF visfatin level. …”
-
151
-
152
-
153
-
154
FTY720 treatment decreased tumor growth in a xenograft model of hepatoblastoma.
Published 2019“…The mean ± SEM for each treatment group were calculated and depicted in a bar graph. …”
-
155
-
156
-
157
-
158
DataSheet_1_Decreased TCF1 and BCL11B expression predicts poor prognosis for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.docx
Published 2022“…<p>T cell immune dysfunction is a prominent characteristic of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and the main cause of failure for immunotherapy and multi-drug resistance. …”
-
159
-
160