Sentence examples for percentage of deviance from inspiring English sources
It provides the desired parsimony, while the percentage of deviance explained reduces moderately (from 0.40 for λmin to 0.32 for λ1se in all three methods).
In LMs, R is defined from the residual sum of squares, and in GLMs the goodness of fit is evaluated in terms of the deviance: the percentage of deviance explained by the model.
Finally, although significance thresholds in maSigPro-GLM maintain their statistical meaning, the goodness of fit, which is used in the second step of maSigPro to select genes with well-fitted models, is evaluated in GLMs in terms of the deviance: the percentage of deviance explained by the model.
Our results show a final age estimation model that included all the explanatory variables proposed (dental measures) and showed a high percentage of estimated deviance (61%), obtained by cross-validation.
The goodness-of-fit was also assessed by the percentage of explained deviance.
The percentage of the deviance explained by the two factor model in continent and trend varied between analyses, from over 80% for all lung cancer and for adeno in females, to under 25% for squamous in males.
In addition, the number of sets of models is given as well as the average percentage of null deviance explained by the generalized additive models of a spline of capture date alone s, of the weather variable alone and finally of the combined model of both the spline of capture date as well as the linear weather variable.
The strengths of the linear relationships were reported using the explained deviance as a percentage of the null deviance.
Predictive deviance (expressed as a percentage of the total deviance) provides a measure of the goodness-of-fit between predicted and raw values.
Population covariates explained a lesser percentage of the total deviance among the cervical screening group aged 50 64 years (45%, table 3) than the cervical screening group aged 25 49 years (78%, table 2) or the breast screening group (72%, table 4); overall variability was also lowest among the former group (IQR 3.5 vs IQR 5.9 and 6.5, respectively, table 1).
Despite a relatively large dataset (435 threatened versus 2,059 non-threatened species), geographic range alone still explained nearly half of deviance in threat risk (percentage deviance explained [%DE] = 45%), but there was little evidence for a nonlinear (quadratic) effect of range on threat risk as reported by Cooper et al. [8] (Table 1a).
