• Documents
  • Authors
  • Tables
  • Log in
  • Sign up
  • MetaCart
  • Donate

CiteSeerX logo

Tools

Sorted by:
Try your query at:
Semantic Scholar Scholar Academic
Google Bing DBLP
Results 1 - 10 of 26,706
Next 10 →

Table 4: Optimal cutoff points for the prognostic factors of rhabdomyolysis

in unknown title
by unknown authors 2006
"... In PAGE 9: ... Applying the maximum pair consistency probability crite- rion, the three continuous variables are categorized, assuming that qtc is a normal variable, t a log-normal var- iable and bt a variable with a common central tendency. Table4 shows the selected cutoff points and the changes of the pair consistency probability. Comparing the pair consistency probabilities of the categorized variable, we can observe how predictive ability changes with polychot- omization and the pair consistency probability C can be used as a measure to evaluate the loss of predictive ability by categorization.... ..."

Table 1: Average error (months) of various prognostic formulations on Wisconsin prognostic data using leave- one-out testing.

in An Inductive Learning Approach to Prognostic Prediction
by Nick Street, O. L. Mangasarian, W. H. Wolberg 1995
"... In PAGE 4: ... The RSA procedure was tested with leave-one-out test- ing (Lachenbruch and Mickey, 1968) to evaluate its ac- curacy in predicting future outcomes. Table1 shows the mean generalization errors of the RSA formulation compared with the following prediction methods: Pooled RSA: All of the feature examples were weighted equally in the objective. See Equation 2.... In PAGE 4: ... In order to simulate feature selection, the k-nearest neighbor algorithm was also tested using only the six features found most relevant by RSA (see pre- vious section). The best results, which are re- ported in Table1 , were obtained using all of the unscaled features, and k equal to seven. Comparative results on all points, recurrent cases only and non-recurrent cases only are shown in Table 1 for the various prediction methods.... In PAGE 5: ...eature selection method described in Section 2.2. Ta- ble 2 summarizes the computational e ect of feature selection, performing the RSA procedure on the Wis- consin prognostic data. As in Table1 , the cumulative error is divided into errors in predicting recurrent and non-recurrent cases. Three di erent styles of feature selection were tested: no selection, tuning-set selection as described above, and a variation which eliminates features down to a certain predetermined number.... ..."
Cited by 8

Table 1: Average error (months) of various prognostic formulations on Wisconsin prognostic data using leave- one-out testing.

in An Inductive Learning Approach to Prognostic Prediction
by W. Nick Street, O. L. Mangasarian, W. H. Wolberg 1995
"... In PAGE 4: ... The RSA procedure was tested with leave-one-out test- ing (Lachenbruch and Mickey, 1968) to evaluate its ac- curacy in predicting future outcomes. Table1 shows the mean generalization errors of the RSA formulation compared with the following prediction methods: Pooled RSA: All of the feature examples were weighted equally in the objective. See Equation 2.... In PAGE 4: ... In order to simulate feature selection, the k-nearest neighbor algorithm was also tested using only the six features found most relevant by RSA (see pre- vious section). The best results, which are re- ported in Table1 , were obtained using all of the unscaled features, and k equal to seven. Comparative results on all points, recurrent cases only and non-recurrent cases only are shown in Table 1 for the various prediction methods.... In PAGE 5: ...eature selection method described in Section 2.2. Ta- ble 2 summarizes the computational e ect of feature selection, performing the RSA procedure on the Wis- consin prognostic data. As in Table1 , the cumulative error is divided into errors in predicting recurrent and non-recurrent cases. Three di erent styles of feature selection were tested: no selection, tuning-set selection as described above, and a variation which eliminates features down to a certain predetermined number.... ..."
Cited by 8

Table I. Prognostic Factors

in Mining Data From a Knowledge Management Perspective: an application to outcome prediction in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma
by Riccardo Bellazzi, Ivano Azzini, Gianna Toffolo, Stefano Bacchetti, Mario Lise

Table 3.1: TASS Numerics Prognostic

in unknown title
by unknown authors 1996

Table 2: Prognostic groups stratification and radiation doses prescriptions:

in unknown title
by unknown authors 2007

Table 3. Variables of prognostic significance for survival in univariate analysis.

in unknown title
by unknown authors

Table 1. Percentage of identical prognostics made on the same sample twice.

in Classification of Cancerous Cells Based on the One-Class Problem Approach
by Nabeel A. Murshed, Flavio Bortolozzi, Robert Sabourin, École De Technologie Supérieure

Table 11 Agreement between Prognostic Index and Cox Score.

in Coronary Risk Prediction by Logical Analysis of Data
by Sorin ALexe, Eugene Blackstone, Peter L. Hammer, Hemant Ishwaran , Michael S. Lauer, Claire E. Pothier Snader

TABLE 3. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors by stepwise method (Cox proportional hazard model) Prognostic factor RH 95% CI P value

in unknown title
by unknown authors 2001
Next 10 →
Results 1 - 10 of 26,706
Powered by: Apache Solr
  • About CiteSeerX
  • Submit and Index Documents
  • Privacy Policy
  • Help
  • Data
  • Source
  • Contact Us

Developed at and hosted by The College of Information Sciences and Technology

© 2007-2016 The Pennsylvania State University