Search alternatives:
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
gap decrease » a decrease (Expand Search), gain decreased (Expand Search), step decrease (Expand Search)
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
gap decrease » a decrease (Expand Search), gain decreased (Expand Search), step decrease (Expand Search)
-
481
Volitional control frequency and intensity in VH (Kapsner-Smith et al., 2025)
Published 2025“…Singers produced significantly smaller mean smallest changes of both <i>F</i>0 and intensity than nonsingers.…”
-
482
-
483
-
484
-
485
-
486
-
487
-
488
-
489
-
490
-
491
-
492
-
493
Growth assessment parameters before and after biological treatment in the different studies.
Published 2025Subjects: -
494
Sound stress exposure prolonged the period of decreased withdrawal threshold after complete Freund’s adjuvant (CFA) injection.
Published 2025“…(B) 50% withdrawal threshold in CFA-treated mice exposed to sound stress. They showed a significant decrease in 50% withdrawal threshold on day 7 after CFA injection, and CFA-treated mice exposed to sound stress showed a significant decrease in 50% withdrawal threshold during days 7–21 after CFA injection (CFA, on day 7, ****<i>P</i> < 0.001 vs day 0, on day 10, ***<i>P</i> < 0.001 vs day0; CFA + stress, day 7, 10, 14, and 21, ****<i>P</i> < 0.0001 vs day 0, Dunnett’s test). …”
-
495
Preference for the EIA – conjoint results.
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. …”
-
496
Sample attribute table.
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. …”
-
497
Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation.
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. …”
-
498
Sample scenario description.
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. …”
-
499
AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios.
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. …”
-
500
Methodological flowchart.
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. …”