Search alternatives:
greater decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search), greater disease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
greater decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search), greater disease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
-
1901
-
1902
-
1903
-
1904
-
1905
-
1906
-
1907
-
1908
Search strategy.
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1909
Fig 1 -
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1910
GMT by age cohort for PWH and PWoH.
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1911
Fig 4 -
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1912
Difference in GMT for HPV16 and HPV18 in PWH.
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1913
Fig 3 -
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1914
Summary of characteristics of studies reviewed.
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1915
Cumulative meta-analysis.
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1916
Summary of immunogenicity information.
Published 2024“…A random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing geometric mean titer (GMT) in PWH to PWoH. Twenty-eight studies out of 988 were eligible for inclusion in our study, and qualitatively synthesized. …”
-
1917
Major hyperparameters of RF-SVR.
Published 2024“…For instance, the RF-MLPR model achieved a 3.7%–6.5% improvement in the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) metric across four hydrological stations compared to the RF-SVR model. (4) Prediction accuracy decreased with longer forecast periods, with the R<sup>2</sup> value dropping from 0.8886 for a 1-month forecast to 0.6358 for a 12-month forecast, indicating the increasing challenge of long-term predictions due to greater uncertainty and the accumulation of influencing factors over time. (5) The RF-MLPR model outperformed the RF-SVR model, demonstrating a superior ability to capture the complex, nonlinear relationships inherent in the data. …”
-
1918
Pseudo code for coupling model execution process.
Published 2024“…For instance, the RF-MLPR model achieved a 3.7%–6.5% improvement in the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) metric across four hydrological stations compared to the RF-SVR model. (4) Prediction accuracy decreased with longer forecast periods, with the R<sup>2</sup> value dropping from 0.8886 for a 1-month forecast to 0.6358 for a 12-month forecast, indicating the increasing challenge of long-term predictions due to greater uncertainty and the accumulation of influencing factors over time. (5) The RF-MLPR model outperformed the RF-SVR model, demonstrating a superior ability to capture the complex, nonlinear relationships inherent in the data. …”
-
1919
Major hyperparameters of RF-MLPR.
Published 2024“…For instance, the RF-MLPR model achieved a 3.7%–6.5% improvement in the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) metric across four hydrological stations compared to the RF-SVR model. (4) Prediction accuracy decreased with longer forecast periods, with the R<sup>2</sup> value dropping from 0.8886 for a 1-month forecast to 0.6358 for a 12-month forecast, indicating the increasing challenge of long-term predictions due to greater uncertainty and the accumulation of influencing factors over time. (5) The RF-MLPR model outperformed the RF-SVR model, demonstrating a superior ability to capture the complex, nonlinear relationships inherent in the data. …”
-
1920
Results of RF algorithm screening factors.
Published 2024“…For instance, the RF-MLPR model achieved a 3.7%–6.5% improvement in the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) metric across four hydrological stations compared to the RF-SVR model. (4) Prediction accuracy decreased with longer forecast periods, with the R<sup>2</sup> value dropping from 0.8886 for a 1-month forecast to 0.6358 for a 12-month forecast, indicating the increasing challenge of long-term predictions due to greater uncertainty and the accumulation of influencing factors over time. (5) The RF-MLPR model outperformed the RF-SVR model, demonstrating a superior ability to capture the complex, nonlinear relationships inherent in the data. …”