Showing 1,081 - 1,100 results of 21,342 for search '(( significant ((gap decrease) OR (mean decrease)) ) OR ( significant decrease decrease ))', query time: 0.50s Refine Results
  1. 1081
  2. 1082
  3. 1083
  4. 1084
  5. 1085
  6. 1086
  7. 1087
  8. 1088

    Analysis of the Nugent score before (T=0) and after (T=1) the use of the vaginal gel. Number of participants and respective percentages of Nugent scores before and after the intervention. A statistically significant decrease in Nugent scores was observed after the intervention (p value =0.0047). by Adriana Bittencourt Campaner (21175462)

    Published 2025
    “…Number of participants and respective percentages of Nugent scores before and after the intervention. A statistically significant decrease in Nugent scores was observed after the intervention (p value =0.0047).…”
  9. 1089
  10. 1090
  11. 1091
  12. 1092
  13. 1093
  14. 1094
  15. 1095

    Preference for the EIA – conjoint results. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

    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. …”
  16. 1096

    Sample attribute table. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

    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. …”
  17. 1097

    Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

    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. …”
  18. 1098

    Sample scenario description. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

    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. …”
  19. 1099

    AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

    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. …”
  20. 1100

    Methodological flowchart. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

    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. …”