Search alternatives:
latest decrease » largest decrease (Expand Search), greatest decrease (Expand Search), largest decreases (Expand Search)
marked decrease » marked increase (Expand Search)
shap decrease » step decrease (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
latest decrease » largest decrease (Expand Search), greatest decrease (Expand Search), largest decreases (Expand Search)
marked decrease » marked increase (Expand Search)
shap decrease » step decrease (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
CM-DWM-EC chart using 30% decrease in the mean for the E(KeV).
Published 2024“…<p>CM-DWM-EC chart using 30% decrease in the mean for the E(KeV).</p>…”
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
SHAP waterfall plot.
Published 2025“…Across 10 models, CatBoost performed best on the test set (AUC = 0.970, accuracy = 0.920, F1 = 0.918), with robust calibration and decision-curve net benefit. SHAP interpretation ranked eGDR among the most influential predictors: SHAP summary and dependence plots indicated that higher eGDR decreased the model’s predicted probability of frailty. …”
-
18
SHAP decision plot.
Published 2025“…Across 10 models, CatBoost performed best on the test set (AUC = 0.970, accuracy = 0.920, F1 = 0.918), with robust calibration and decision-curve net benefit. SHAP interpretation ranked eGDR among the most influential predictors: SHAP summary and dependence plots indicated that higher eGDR decreased the model’s predicted probability of frailty. …”
-
19
SHAP dependence plots.
Published 2025“…Across 10 models, CatBoost performed best on the test set (AUC = 0.970, accuracy = 0.920, F1 = 0.918), with robust calibration and decision-curve net benefit. SHAP interpretation ranked eGDR among the most influential predictors: SHAP summary and dependence plots indicated that higher eGDR decreased the model’s predicted probability of frailty. …”
-
20