Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
The models showed adequate predictive capability (Fig. 6c; Additional file 1: Table S4).
These models showed adequate predictive power (assessed by the leave-one-out cross-validation experiment) yielding values of q2 = 0.935 (scv = 0.259) and q2 = 0.946 (scv = 0.235), respectively.
Evaluation of the goodness of fit for the models showed adequate fit for the various analyses.
Similarly, endocarditis and bacteremia models showed adequate penetration into vegetations and high eradication rates from blood with oritavancin.
All the dimensions of both typological models showed adequate internal consistency, and were significantly associated with some of the criterion dimensions of the standard on an individual basis.
In addition, evaluation of the goodness of fit for the various models showed adequate fit for the various analyses (tables F-H in appendix 1; figs B1-B7 in appendix 2).
Similar(54)
Given the statistical measures of model fit provided in Tables 2 and 3 (adjusted R, AIC, and root MSE), all three models show adequate and substantially similar model fit.
Coverage often increased with sample size, with three of the four models showing adequate coverage for all parameters at the largest sample sizes simulated (Additional file 1: Table S1).
The performance of the ANN and RSM model showed adequate prediction of the response, with AAD of 11.6% and 3.6%, and R2 of 0.9733 and 0.9568, respectively.
The hypothesised measurement model showed adequate fit.
Moreover, for the studies combined, the strict factorial invariance model showed adequate fit on all indices.
Related(20)
models demonstrated adequate
samples showed adequate
models showed good
models showed satisfactory
models showed reasonable
sample showed adequate
models showed similar
models yielded adequate
models was adequate
models produced adequate
models achieved adequate
models showed excellent
models showed significant
models were adequate
models showed clear
models had adequate
models appeared adequate
model showed adequate
models showed high
models showed strong
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