Exact(11)
All models were evaluated by measuring the goodness of fit through the coefficient of determination (R2) and the Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE).
All models were evaluated for diameter fit and prediction performance, but only the BASE, GB99 and the best one of the seven M3 models were evaluated for volume prediction performance.
All models were evaluated graphically using goodness-of-fit plots.
All models were evaluated by Ramachandran plots (Additional file 6: Figure S5).
All models were evaluated using a five-fold cross-validation technique.
All models were evaluated for goodness of fit by using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
Similar(49)
The performance of all models is evaluated using concepts of the square of regression coefficient (R2), MSE and symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE), shown in Table 5.
Although not all retrieved models were developed to predict both outcomes, the performance of all models was evaluated for both outcomes in terms of their discrimination and calibration.
All the models were evaluated with an external CV scheme that omits a whole treatment group (typically five animals) per cycle.
The wind pressure coefficients on all the models were evaluated from pressure records measured in a closed circuit wind tunnel under boundary layer flow for wind directions of 0° to 90° at an interval of 15°.
The residuals from all regression models were evaluated for normalcy.
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