For more reliable validations, high resolution in vivo or in situ strain measurements should be used, although the general acceptance of such detailed datasets for this purpose remains a concern.
Although we created simple "cylindrical plus spherical" models in a previous study [ 6], the model used in this study was more realistic and was more reliable for validation.
These estimates of hypothetical changes of gene expression were used solely for purpose of prioritizing predicted targets and narrowing down list of predictions in order to select those that are most likely to be affected in experimental groups of animals and would be more reliable candidates for validation experiments.
For those variables reported on both, information from the birth record was used unless the hospital birth admission record was indicated as being more reliable according to validation studies of birth and hospital data [ 35- 37].
By accounting for factors such as gastrointestinal absorption, age, weight, and half-life, a one-compartment toxicokinetic model may serve as the link between dietary cadmium exposure and urinary cadmium excretion, and may thus provide a more reliable way of validation [ 11].
For a more reliable algorithm, comparison and validation with ice thickness data by in situ observations will be ultimately required, although such observations in the polynya areas have been quite limited until now.
Since the need for regularization is greater with high condition numbers, it is consequently found that the ordinary cross validation method gives more reliable results overall than the generalized cross validation method.
Although more time consuming, cross validation appears more reliable than AIC and BIC as it directly measures the predictive power of a model on 'future' data.
The "brute force" approach to computational cluster validation provides more reliable results compared to re-sampling, but results in considerably longer execution times.
