Ask
Search
My library
ORKG

ORKG Ask

Our mission is to organize scholarly knowledge and make it accessible to humans and machines.

About

About ORKG Ask
Report issue
Statistics
Contact

Legal

Terms of use
Data protection (sheet)
Imprint
Accessibility
License

Technical

We
open source
System status
Changelog
Frontend: v1.41.0
Backend: v1.13.4

We use cookies to provide a better user experience.

Data Protection

Performance of the machine-learned model when propensity matching based on age and gender.

Sanjeev P. Bhavnani (13847866)
Rola Khedraki (13847869)
Travis J. Cohoon (13847872)
Frederick J. Meine III (5613791)
Thomas D. Stuckey (5613776)
Thomas McMinn (14123919)
Jeremiah P. Depta (5613785)
Brett Bennett (14123922)
Thomas McGarry (14123925)
William Carroll (2106721)
David Suh (111966)
John A. Steuter (5613788)
Michael Roberts (312937)
Horace R. Gillins (14123928)
Ian Shadforth (5613803)
Emmanuel Lange (13847884)
Abhinav Doomra (14123931)
Mohammad Firouzi (14123934)
Farhad Fathieh (4382437)
Timothy Burton (3401057)
Ali Khosousi (5613800)
Shyam Ramchandani (5613794)
William E. Sanders Jr. (5613806)
Frank Smart (14123937)

Publication date

November 2022

DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0277300.g005

Publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Abstract

Performance of the machine-learned model when propensity matching based on age and gender.</p

Extracted data

Related items

A graph of model performance scores (precision, recall and F1) based on varying MLP depths.

Leonard Tan (10663470)
Ooi Kiang Tan (2382127)
Chun Chau Sze (14419744)
Wilson Wen Bin Goh (14419747)

January 2023

A graph of model performance scores (precision, recall and F1) based on varying MLP depths.</p

Model performance measures for the indicated outcomes using a random forest algorithm.

Monalisa Patel (2302711)
Japmeet Sandhu (13812936)
Fu-Sheng Chou (6078491)

September 2022

Model performance measures for the indicated outcomes using a random forest algorithm.</p

Comparing the performance of the GCNMLP with various machine learning methods for SIDER.

Y.-H. Chen (3943967)
Y.-T. Shih (14259397)
C.-S. Chien (14259400)
C.-S. Tsai (14259403)

December 2022

Comparing the performance of the GCNMLP with various machine learning methods for SIDER.</p

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the original imbalanced training set.

Nirajan Budhathoki (17599014)
Ramesh Bhandari (11080476)
Suraj Bashyal (17599017)
Carl Lee (17599020)

December 2023

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the original imbalanced training set.</p

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the ROSE-adjusted balanced training set.

Nirajan Budhathoki (17599014)
Ramesh Bhandari (11080476)
Suraj Bashyal (17599017)
Carl Lee (17599020)

December 2023

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the ROSE-adjusted balanced training set.</p

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the SMOTE-adjusted balanced training set.

Nirajan Budhathoki (17599014)
Ramesh Bhandari (11080476)
Suraj Bashyal (17599017)
Carl Lee (17599020)

December 2023

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the SMOTE-adjusted balanced training set.</...

Performance of the models trained by human polymorphism and primate polymorphism.

Qiong Wei (109177)
Roland L. Dunbrack Jr (365190)

July 2013

<p>Performance of the models trained by human polymorphism and primate polymorphism.</p

Model prediction for response times in experiment 2, as a function of word-pairing and participant gender.

Jennifer Hay (619919)
Abby Walker (6293951)
Kauyumari Sanchez (6293954)
Kirsty Thompson (6293957)

February 2019

Model prediction for response times in experiment 2, as a function of word-pairing and participant g...

Performance comparison of the machine learning models regarding the use of KNN imputer.

Turki Aljrees (16715369)

January 2024

Performance comparison of the machine learning models regarding the use of KNN imputer.</p

Characteristics of the study population after propensity score matching according to gender.

Sang-Min Park (2225200)
Gang-Un Kim (6009341)
Ho-Joong Kim (1312884)
Hyoungmin Kim (6009344)
Bong-Soon Chang (6009347)
Choon-Ki Lee (6009350)
Jin S. Yeom (6009353)

November 2018

Characteristics of the study population after propensity score matching according to gender.</p

Performance of the machine learning algorithms for survivability predictions.

Dohyun Kim (1921894)
Sungmin You (5883812)
Soonwon So (5883815)
Jongshill Lee (5883818)
Sunhyun Yook (5883821)
Dong Pyo Jang (821432)
In Young Kim (821431)
Eunkyoung Park (2577247)
Kyeongwon Cho (5883824)
Won Chul Cha (761496)
Dong Wook Shin (176902)
Baek Hwan Cho (5883827)
Hoon-Ki Park (5883830)

October 2018

Performance of the machine learning algorithms for survivability predictions.</p

Performance comparison of a species-specific predictor using the test dataset.

Md. Mehedi Hasan (755447)
Hiroyuki Kurata (35718)

October 2018

Performance comparison of a species-specific predictor using the test dataset.</p

Propensity score matching was applied for each cohort using the covariates gender, age, region, and education.

Jae-Young Lee (634104)
Kyung-Cheol Lim (6204593)
So-Yun Kim (1722310)
Hye-Ran Paik (6204596)
Young-Jae Kim (2552410)
Bo-Hyoung Jin (6204599)

January 2019

Propensity score matching was applied for each cohort using the covariates gender, age, region, and ...

Model performance on demographic subgroups of the test set, demonstrating equivalent performance on race (white and non-white), sex (male and female), and age (under age 65 and 65 and older) groups.

Meredith Cox (14149495)
J. C. Panagides (14149498)
Azadeh Tabari (5939549)
Sanjeeva Kalva (14149501)
Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer (837590)
Dania Daye (3580892)

November 2022

Model performance on demographic subgroups of the test set, demonstrating equivalent performance on ...

Model predictions of response times by word gender and IAT pair in experiment 3.

Jennifer Hay (619919)
Abby Walker (6293951)
Kauyumari Sanchez (6293954)
Kirsty Thompson (6293957)

February 2019

Model predictions of response times by word gender and IAT pair in experiment 3.</p

A graph of model performance scores (precision, recall and F1) based on varying MLP depths.

Leonard Tan (10663470)
Ooi Kiang Tan (2382127)
Chun Chau Sze (14419744)
Wilson Wen Bin Goh (14419747)

January 2023

A graph of model performance scores (precision, recall and F1) based on varying MLP depths.</p

Model performance measures for the indicated outcomes using a random forest algorithm.

Monalisa Patel (2302711)
Japmeet Sandhu (13812936)
Fu-Sheng Chou (6078491)

September 2022

Model performance measures for the indicated outcomes using a random forest algorithm.</p

Comparing the performance of the GCNMLP with various machine learning methods for SIDER.

Y.-H. Chen (3943967)
Y.-T. Shih (14259397)
C.-S. Chien (14259400)
C.-S. Tsai (14259403)

December 2022

Comparing the performance of the GCNMLP with various machine learning methods for SIDER.</p

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the original imbalanced training set.

Nirajan Budhathoki (17599014)
Ramesh Bhandari (11080476)
Suraj Bashyal (17599017)
Carl Lee (17599020)

December 2023

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the original imbalanced training set.</p

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the ROSE-adjusted balanced training set.

Nirajan Budhathoki (17599014)
Ramesh Bhandari (11080476)
Suraj Bashyal (17599017)
Carl Lee (17599020)

December 2023

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the ROSE-adjusted balanced training set.</p

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the SMOTE-adjusted balanced training set.

Nirajan Budhathoki (17599014)
Ramesh Bhandari (11080476)
Suraj Bashyal (17599017)
Carl Lee (17599020)

December 2023

Performance of machine learning models on test set using the SMOTE-adjusted balanced training set.</...

Performance of the models trained by human polymorphism and primate polymorphism.

Qiong Wei (109177)
Roland L. Dunbrack Jr (365190)

July 2013

<p>Performance of the models trained by human polymorphism and primate polymorphism.</p

Model prediction for response times in experiment 2, as a function of word-pairing and participant gender.

Jennifer Hay (619919)
Abby Walker (6293951)
Kauyumari Sanchez (6293954)
Kirsty Thompson (6293957)

February 2019

Model prediction for response times in experiment 2, as a function of word-pairing and participant g...

Performance comparison of the machine learning models regarding the use of KNN imputer.

Turki Aljrees (16715369)

January 2024

Performance comparison of the machine learning models regarding the use of KNN imputer.</p

Characteristics of the study population after propensity score matching according to gender.

Sang-Min Park (2225200)
Gang-Un Kim (6009341)
Ho-Joong Kim (1312884)
Hyoungmin Kim (6009344)
Bong-Soon Chang (6009347)
Choon-Ki Lee (6009350)
Jin S. Yeom (6009353)

November 2018

Characteristics of the study population after propensity score matching according to gender.</p

Performance of the machine learning algorithms for survivability predictions.

Dohyun Kim (1921894)
Sungmin You (5883812)
Soonwon So (5883815)
Jongshill Lee (5883818)
Sunhyun Yook (5883821)
Dong Pyo Jang (821432)
In Young Kim (821431)
Eunkyoung Park (2577247)
Kyeongwon Cho (5883824)
Won Chul Cha (761496)
Dong Wook Shin (176902)
Baek Hwan Cho (5883827)
Hoon-Ki Park (5883830)

October 2018

Performance of the machine learning algorithms for survivability predictions.</p

Performance comparison of a species-specific predictor using the test dataset.

Md. Mehedi Hasan (755447)
Hiroyuki Kurata (35718)

October 2018

Performance comparison of a species-specific predictor using the test dataset.</p

Propensity score matching was applied for each cohort using the covariates gender, age, region, and education.

Jae-Young Lee (634104)
Kyung-Cheol Lim (6204593)
So-Yun Kim (1722310)
Hye-Ran Paik (6204596)
Young-Jae Kim (2552410)
Bo-Hyoung Jin (6204599)

January 2019

Propensity score matching was applied for each cohort using the covariates gender, age, region, and ...

Model performance on demographic subgroups of the test set, demonstrating equivalent performance on race (white and non-white), sex (male and female), and age (under age 65 and 65 and older) groups.

Meredith Cox (14149495)
J. C. Panagides (14149498)
Azadeh Tabari (5939549)
Sanjeeva Kalva (14149501)
Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer (837590)
Dania Daye (3580892)

November 2022

Model performance on demographic subgroups of the test set, demonstrating equivalent performance on ...

Model predictions of response times by word gender and IAT pair in experiment 3.

Jennifer Hay (619919)
Abby Walker (6293951)
Kauyumari Sanchez (6293954)
Kirsty Thompson (6293957)

February 2019

Model predictions of response times by word gender and IAT pair in experiment 3.</p

A graph of model performance scores (precision, recall and F1) based on varying MLP depths.

Leonard Tan (10663470)
Ooi Kiang Tan (2382127)
Chun Chau Sze (14419744)
Wilson Wen Bin Goh (14419747)

January 2023

A graph of model performance scores (precision, recall and F1) based on varying MLP depths.</p

Model performance measures for the indicated outcomes using a random forest algorithm.

Monalisa Patel (2302711)
Japmeet Sandhu (13812936)
Fu-Sheng Chou (6078491)

September 2022

Model performance measures for the indicated outcomes using a random forest algorithm.</p

Comparing the performance of the GCNMLP with various machine learning methods for SIDER.

Y.-H. Chen (3943967)
Y.-T. Shih (14259397)
C.-S. Chien (14259400)
C.-S. Tsai (14259403)

December 2022

Comparing the performance of the GCNMLP with various machine learning methods for SIDER.</p