Search alternatives:
greater decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search), greater disease (Expand Search)
lower decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), linear decrease (Expand Search), we decrease (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search)
greater decrease » greatest decrease (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search), greater disease (Expand Search)
lower decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), linear decrease (Expand Search), we decrease (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search)
-
1921
-
1922
-
1923
-
1924
-
1925
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. …”
-
1926
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. …”
-
1927
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. …”
-
1928
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. …”
-
1929
Schematic diagram of the basic principles of 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. …”
-
1930
Attitude towards NTDs in the study Area.
Published 2025“…<div><p>Background</p><p>Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) continue to significantly impact marginalized communities, contributing to high morbidity, stigma, and social exclusion. …”
-
1931
Dataset of results.
Published 2025“…<div><p>Background</p><p>Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) continue to significantly impact marginalized communities, contributing to high morbidity, stigma, and social exclusion. …”
-
1932
Respondents’ perception about the public artwork.
Published 2025“…<div><p>Background</p><p>Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) continue to significantly impact marginalized communities, contributing to high morbidity, stigma, and social exclusion. …”
-
1933
-
1934
-
1935
Qualitative changes in the implant subgroup.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
1936
Results of the colorimetric MTT test.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
1937
IOP fluctuation.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
1938
IOP fluctuation.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
1939
-
1940
Data.
Published 2025“…Similarly, semiannual MDA lowered Mf prevalence from 23.3% (CI, 21.4-25.4%) to 0.3% (CI, 0.1-0.7%). …”