Search alternatives:
marked decrease » marked increase (Expand Search)
small decrease » small increased (Expand Search)
shap decrease » step decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
marked decrease » marked increase (Expand Search)
small decrease » small increased (Expand Search)
shap decrease » step decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
Group-level narrow- and broad-band spectral changes after hemispherotomy reveal a marked EEG slowing of the isolated cortex, robust across patients.
Published 2025“…This decrease was larger in the disconnected than in the contralateral cortex. …”
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
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. …”
-
10
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. …”
-
11
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. …”
-
12
-
13
Biases in larger populations.
Published 2025“…<p>(<b>A</b>) Maximum absolute bias vs the number of neurons in the population for the Bayesian decoder. …”
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19
SHAP dependence plots with interaction coloring.
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
Study-related adverse events.
Published 2025“…We recorded 12 study-related, Grade 1–2 AEs and no serious AEs. 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). …”