Search alternatives:
algorithm python » algorithm within (Expand Search), algorithms within (Expand Search), algorithm both (Expand Search)
python function » protein function (Expand Search)
algorithm from » algorithm flow (Expand Search)
from function » from functional (Expand Search), fc function (Expand Search)
algorithm a » algorithms a (Expand Search), algorithm _ (Expand Search), algorithm b (Expand Search)
a function » _ function (Expand Search)
algorithm python » algorithm within (Expand Search), algorithms within (Expand Search), algorithm both (Expand Search)
python function » protein function (Expand Search)
algorithm from » algorithm flow (Expand Search)
from function » from functional (Expand Search), fc function (Expand Search)
algorithm a » algorithms a (Expand Search), algorithm _ (Expand Search), algorithm b (Expand Search)
a function » _ function (Expand Search)
-
1321
-
1322
-
1323
Image and optimization comparison diagram for the Hartmann 4-D function.
Published 2025“…<p>(a) Hartmann 4-D three-dimensional function image. …”
-
1324
Image and optimization comparison diagram for the Schaffer F7 function.
Published 2025“…<p>(a) Schaffer F7 three-dimensional function image. …”
-
1325
-
1326
-
1327
-
1328
-
1329
-
1330
-
1331
-
1332
The list of 434 anoikis-related genes (ARGs).
Published 2025“…We employed univariate Cox regression analysis, LASSO regression, and random forest algorithms to identify anoikis-related genes (ARG) from bulk transcriptomic datasets, and establish a 7-gene prognostic signature, validated in two LUAD cohorts from GEO database. …”
-
1333
Workflow diagram for this study.
Published 2025“…We employed univariate Cox regression analysis, LASSO regression, and random forest algorithms to identify anoikis-related genes (ARG) from bulk transcriptomic datasets, and establish a 7-gene prognostic signature, validated in two LUAD cohorts from GEO database. …”
-
1334
-
1335
Test data on the ability to escape local optima.
Published 2025“…The study employed traditional benchmark functions and conducted evaluations versus baselines Standard GEP, NMO-SARA, and MS-GEP-A to assess fitness outcomes, R² values, population diversification, and the avoidance of local optima. …”
-
1336
Summary of the notations.
Published 2025“…The study employed traditional benchmark functions and conducted evaluations versus baselines Standard GEP, NMO-SARA, and MS-GEP-A to assess fitness outcomes, R² values, population diversification, and the avoidance of local optima. …”
-
1337
Comparison of population diversity.
Published 2025“…The study employed traditional benchmark functions and conducted evaluations versus baselines Standard GEP, NMO-SARA, and MS-GEP-A to assess fitness outcomes, R² values, population diversification, and the avoidance of local optima. …”
-
1338
Test data on mining capacity.
Published 2025“…The study employed traditional benchmark functions and conducted evaluations versus baselines Standard GEP, NMO-SARA, and MS-GEP-A to assess fitness outcomes, R² values, population diversification, and the avoidance of local optima. …”
-
1339
Comparison of standard GEP and DGEP.
Published 2025“…The study employed traditional benchmark functions and conducted evaluations versus baselines Standard GEP, NMO-SARA, and MS-GEP-A to assess fitness outcomes, R² values, population diversification, and the avoidance of local optima. …”
-
1340
Test data on population diversity.
Published 2025“…The study employed traditional benchmark functions and conducted evaluations versus baselines Standard GEP, NMO-SARA, and MS-GEP-A to assess fitness outcomes, R² values, population diversification, and the avoidance of local optima. …”