Sentence examples for mean accuracy for from inspiring English sources

For hybrid natural products, the magnitude of the effect of adding a sugar to an untailored scaffold was only slightly different from the effect of changing the site of glycosylation (mean accuracy for all fingerprints 83.86 vs.83.366%, respectively), although the difference was highly significant (two-sided Brunner Munzel paired-rank test, P < 2.2 × 10−16).

Again, mean accuracy for prosocial faces was higher than for antisocial and neutral faces (p<.02; Figure 2b).

Pairwise comparisons of conditions confirmed significantly higher accuracy in the unrelated than in the mask condition (p = .014, Bonferroni-corrected; mean accuracy for the unrelated condition  = 81%, mean accuracy for the mask condition  = 74%) and higher accuracy in the related than in the unrelated conditions (p<.001, Bonferroni-corrected; mean accuracy for related condition  = 88%).

Figure 1 shows the group mean accuracy for the repeated and non-repeated trials of the SLI, age- and grammar-matched groups.

The prediction errors of oil flow rate and oil saturation for were less than 10% at all times, especially, the mean prediction accuracy for oil flow rate could reach 1.9%, and the mean accuracy for the oil saturation was about 2.0%.

In the tables, the highest mean accuracy for each noise level is highlighted in bold and the lowest in italics.

Once again, mean accuracies for the local database are lower than that for the PPMI dataset (0.88 to 0.92 and 0.95 to 0.97 respectively).

Kravitz [14] also showed that the greatest rotation accuracy is achieved at the upper incisors (mean accuracy 48.8% for central and lateral incisors); Nguyen and Cheng [21] too confirm this finding, reporting a mean incisor rotation of 60%.

As shown in Figure 2, mean accuracy was highest for the verbal stimuli (i.e., letter, word, and namable objects) and lowest for the sinusoidal gratings.

Mean accuracies for semi-quantification varied from 0.78 to 0.87 for the local database and from 0.89 to 0.95 for the PPMI database.

Although the mean accuracies for the two models were similar, the cross-participant model had similar accuracies for all of the participants, whereas the within-participant model did much better on some participants than others.