Search alternatives:
significantly change » significant change (Expand Search), significantly enhance (Expand Search), significant changes (Expand Search)
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
change decrease » change increases (Expand Search), change degree (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
significantly change » significant change (Expand Search), significantly enhance (Expand Search), significant changes (Expand Search)
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
change decrease » change increases (Expand Search), change degree (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
-
1
Baseline patient characteristics.
Published 2025“…While mean respiratory rate was not affected, midazolam resulted in a significant decrease in both VRR (ß = −0.071, 95% CI: −0.120 to −0.021) and VTV (ß = −0.117, 95% CI: −0.170 to −0.062). …”
-
2
-
3
Data.
Published 2025“…However, no statistically significant changes were observed in groups with U-Cd levels above 2.0 μg/g creatinine. …”
-
4
-
5
Study-related adverse events.
Published 2025“…In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”
-
6
Study flow chart.
Published 2025“…In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”
-
7
Study CONSORT diagram.
Published 2025“…In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”
-
8
Image 2_Changes in the gut microbiome due to diarrhea in neonatal Korean indigenous calves.jpeg
Published 2025“…However, Proteobacteria increased and Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria decreased in calves with diarrhea. In addition, calves with diarrhea showed a significant decrease in the diversity of the gut microbiome, especially for anaerobic microorganisms Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Gemmiger formicilis, and Collinsella aerofaciens. …”
-
9
Image 1_Changes in the gut microbiome due to diarrhea in neonatal Korean indigenous calves.jpeg
Published 2025“…However, Proteobacteria increased and Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria decreased in calves with diarrhea. In addition, calves with diarrhea showed a significant decrease in the diversity of the gut microbiome, especially for anaerobic microorganisms Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Gemmiger formicilis, and Collinsella aerofaciens. …”
-
10
Recruitment flow diagram of the current study.
Published 2025“…Predictors of HRQoL included sociodemographic, psychological, medical, and trauma-related factors collected at baseline. We applied generalized additive mixed models to flexibly capture nonlinear changes in HRQoL over time, and piecewise latent growth curve model to analyze distinct linear phases of recovery across defined time intervals.…”
-
11
Mean parameter values for the selected crops.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
12
Performance comparison of ML models.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
13
Comparative data of different soil samples.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
14
Confusion matrix of random forest model.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
15
Sensor value scenario for fuzzy logic algorithm.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
16
Evaluation metrics of selected ML models.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
17
Block diagram of the proposed system.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
18
Chart for applicable amount of fertilizers.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
19
Cost analysis of irrigation controller unit.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”
-
20
Run times of two algorithms.
Published 2025“…Furthermore, crop yield is predicted using Linear Regression and Random Forest, achieving accuracies of 93.49% and 95.87%, respectively, while using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) as the loss function. …”