Suggestions(5)
Exact(18)
The classification results of this dataset are described in Table 7 having a maximum accuracy of 98.80%.
Table 5 described the results of the proposed algorithm using CASIA dataset having a maximum accuracy of 98.70%, and fast positive-region reduction (FPR) is 0.01.
The inclusion of Spanish data increased the results to a great extent, obtaining a maximum accuracy of 63.29% with AM_cz&ES_2.
The results are depicted in Table 12 having a maximum accuracy of 99.40% and FNR 0.60, which is confirmed by their confusion matrix given in Table 13.
As expected (see Tables 4 and 5), semi-quantification performance was superior for the PPMI dataset as compared to the local clinical database, reaching a maximum accuracy of 0.95 for PPMI and 0.87 for the local data.
Beginning at the 700-ms temporal window, the linear SVM provided significantly better performance than any other kernel type, and reached a maximum accuracy of 94.5 % (SD = 0.064 %) when the full post-stimulus epoch (900 ms) was used.
Similar(42)
In the light of the graphic, this manuscript technique reaches a maximum accuracy rate of 90.67% (88% sensitivity and 93.33% specificity) for both PCA and PLS plus LMNN transformation and when used LMNN-RECT, accuracy 87.33% (82.67% sensitivity and 92% specificity), thus outperforming the PCA (Acc = 85.33%) or baseline VAF (Acc = 81.18%) techniques.
The resulting cut points for the CSF biomarkers are similar to those reported by Shaw et al. (2009), which were derived using a maximum accuracy classification of autopsy confirmed Alzheimer's disease versus healthy controls.
This cut point was chosen according to the results of Shaw et al. (2009) who determined cut points using a maximum accuracy classification of autopsy confirmed patients with Alzheimer's disease and cognitively normal subjects; (iii) APOE-positive (APOE+), subjects with one or more APOE4 alleles; and (iv) amyloid-positive APOE-positive (amyloid+APOE+), subjects who are both amyloid+ and APOE+.
A similar maximum accuracy of genomic selection was suggested by the result of Daetwyler [ 18].
It reports a very high maximum accuracy of more than 85%% (AUC 0.9).
More suggestions(1)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com