ライフサイエンスコーパス: goodness-of-fit

1 hin this study using Hosmer-Lemeshow C test (goodness-of-fit).

2 of death increased slightly in magnitude and goodness of fit.

3 tics including graphs are used to assess the goodness of fit.

4 ive graphical tests are applied to judge the goodness of fit.

5 the 3 regression models was used to evaluate goodness of fit.

6 as against weak results did not diminish the goodness of fit.

7 curacy and does not significantly reduce the goodness of fit.

8 aximizes either the effect estimate or model goodness of fit.

9 els demonstrated a similar degree of overall goodness-of-fit.

10 omial and allometric models yielded adequate goodness-of-fit.

11 e area, 0.842+/-0.023) and calibration (chi2 goodness of fit, 8.95; P=0.442).

12 0.934) and calibration (chi-square test for goodness-of-fit = 9.31, p = 0.317) of the PEdiatric Logi

13 In an attempt to improve the goodness of fit, a probabilistic model of late loss was

14 Our base-case LUR models had modest goodness-of-fit (adjusted R(2): approximately 0.5 [PN],

15 Goodness-of-fit analyses reveal that the irregularity in

16 Results were evaluated with goodness-of-fit analysis and, in normal-appearing liver

17 Finally, a goodness-of-fit analysis applied at the individual subje

18 Goodness-of-fit analysis of each connectivity map with n

19 Robustness of the models was explored using goodness of fit and correlation.

20 , the CAD consortium scores offered improved goodness of fit and discrimination; thus, their use coul

21 deling resulted in a model with an excellent goodness of fit and in which the APOE x age interaction

22 A chi2 test for goodness of fit and partial Fourier analysis were used t

23 dition, modeled functions were evaluated for goodness of fit and the statistical significance of thei

24 Models were tested for goodness of fit and were validated for the remaining 5,8

25 discrimination assessed via Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit and C-statistics, respectively.

26 Goodness-of-fit and calibration were assessed by the Hos

27 ing trial (IDEAL; n=8888) confirmed adequate goodness-of-fit and calibration, but moderate discrimina

28 properties during cladogenesis, and performs goodness-of-fit and categorical statistical tests.

29 realistic modeling approach, yields superior goodness-of-fit and more reliable analysis results, as d

30 We then determined goodness-of-fit and optimal cutoff values through receiv

31 ell-established R(2) statistic for assessing goodness-of-fit and prediction power.

32 lop the models and subsequently evaluated by goodness-of-fit and receiver operating characteristic (R

33 ensive statistical analyses including error, goodness-of-fit and robustness assessments.

34 ear regression analyses assessing precision, goodness of fit, and accuracy to develop improvements in

35 n plots and Akaike Information Criterion for goodness of fit, and net reclassification improvement (N

36 with the 2 IFs were compared regarding their goodness of fit as assessed by the residuals, fit parame

37 situations where two models possess similar goodness-of-fit assessments, visual analysis of the Cot

38 ple procedures for inference, prediction and goodness-of-fit assessments.

39 death rates of bacteria: these improved the goodness-of-fit at the second time point at the expense

40 of exposure prediction improved the model's goodness of fit (Bayesian Information Criterion) and led

41 tion ("return movements") by quantifying the goodness of fit between neuronal discharge during cued a

42 distributions, and calculate a least-squares goodness of fit between the two.

43 used, all tested models displayed comparable goodness of fit, but when different subranges of this po

44 each cluster's gene expression function and goodness-of-fit by way of a 'mean curve' construct and i

45 hort 2: C statistic = 0.887, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit C statistic chi-square = 39).

46 hort 1: C statistic = 0.874, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit C statistic chi-square = 72.5; cohort 2:

47 s, Kaplan-Meier methods (log-rank test), and goodness of fit calculations (c-statistics) were perform

48 D based on the standard normal distribution (goodness of fit chi(2) = 4.84, P = 0.01).

49 urve, 0.82) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit chi-square p = 0.57) in the validation c

50 pared against the expected ratio of 1:2:1 by goodness-of-fit chi-square tests.

51 nd predicted diabetes risks (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit chi-squared test for each model: P < 0.0

52 ved by prescreening gene combinations with a goodness-of-fit chi2 statistic that depends on associati

53 mplitude, acrophase, circadian quotient, and goodness-of-fit coefficient) derived from single-oscilla

54 g a shape-matching function that provides a 'goodness of fit' coefficient should provide a more robus

55 characteristic analyses and bootstrap-based goodness-of-fit comparisons via Bayesian information cri

56 ar [Spearman rank-order (rs)] and nonlinear (goodness-of-fit) correlations were performed.

57 ionally using the experimental KIE values as goodness of fit criteria.

58 del that best described these data, based on goodness-of-fit criteria, included first-order rate cons

59 As a consequence, certain goodness-of-fit criteria, such as the runs-of-signs test

60 on hypotheses, each validated by a composite goodness-of-fit criterion.

61 Goodness-of-fit demonstrated p value of more than 0.05 f

62 ated and best-fit models achieved sufficient goodness of fit (each P > 0.10).

63 The Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square goodness-of-fit evaluations demonstrated absence of sign

64 cription length criterion was used to assess goodness of fit for each model.

65 an squared error (RMSE) was used to evaluate goodness of fit for each regression model.

66 Using the OLTX-specific approaches, goodness-of-fit for both hospital and 1-yr mortality was

67 is paper, we propose some tests to check the goodness-of-fit for the fixed and random effect models w

68 To estimate the goodness-of-fit for the Simplified Acute Physiology Scor

69 e distributions are used to produce relative goodness-of-fit (GF) scores for measuring the difference

70 eus and the global connectivity indexed with goodness of fit (GOF) of the default mode network (DMN)

71 of lymphatic filariasis, and use a simulated goodness-of-fit (GOF) method to estimate immunological p

72 ratio: 0.99, 0.99, and 1.00; Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit H-statistic: 66.4, 63.7, and 81.4 for th

73 ibration model method resulted in acceptable goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, P = 0.54; Brier s

74 del, but when tested across deciles of risk, goodness-of-fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic, chi-square =

75 ssion tree methods, modified to optimize for goodness of fit in treatment effects and to account for

76 However, in practice, the goodness-of-fit in meta-analysis is rarely discussed.

77 Goodness of fit indicated that, at realistic noise level

78 ains an extensive set of derived properties, goodness-of-fit indicators, and links to other EBI datab

79 Model goodness of fit is evaluated over the temperature range

80 different models were evaluated in terms of goodness-of-fit, long-term trends, and halving times.

81 null; selecting the lag that maximizes model goodness of fit may lead to confidence intervals that ar

82 of variables as the decline in pseudo-R2 (a goodness-of-fit measure for median regression) when omit

83 with a maximum likelihood procedure and the goodness-of-fit measures along with the associated stand

84 Moreover, general goodness-of-fit measures are not a strong basis to suppo

85 rth-versus-first-quartile odds ratios (ORs), goodness-of-fit measures, and contributing fraction.

86 nality reduction methods by applying several goodness-of-fit measures.

87 The data showed a linear log-log plot and goodness-of-fit methods showed the data followed a power

88 scriptive power of each model, using several goodness-of-fit metrics and a study of parametric identi

89 , the pairwise regression formula revealed a goodness of fit of 0.792.

90 _cal and simultaneously measured mPAP with a goodness of fit of 0.892.

91 Goodness of fit of correlations between the IRC and SRF

92 The goodness of fit of each model to the new data set was te

93 The goodness of fit of models based on point counts ranged b

94 A standard deviation score plot confirmed goodness of fit of the models, and fitted centiles were

95 deduced from differences in the statistical goodness of fit of the phosphotransfer data to the kinet

96 tandard statistical techniques to assess the goodness of fit of the resulting model and validate the

97 ive studies, the authors focused on relative goodness of fits of the various pathways, but a simple t

98 Goodness-of-fit of biomass data from fish stock assessme

99 The overall goodness-of-fit of both models was assessed.

100 In this study we compared the goodness-of-fit of each theory with a probabilistic mode

101 oth to measure and to visualize directly the goodness-of-fit of packing interactions.

102 which quickly provide global measures of the goodness-of-fit of the 3D structures with NOESY peak lis

103 posed tests are useful tools in checking the goodness-of-fit of the normal models used in meta-analys

104 be used as a statistic for testing the model goodness-of-fit of the observed DNA sequences.

105 We discuss methods for assessing the goodness-of-fit of these models, as well as problems con

106 t measures that can be used to evaluate the "goodness-of-fit" of the 3D structure with NOESY data, to

107 The RPF server measures the 'goodness-of-fit' of the 3D structure with NMR chemical s

108 account for this pattern and was tested for goodness of fit on 55 individuals who became diabetic af

109 tion and the anomalous one, and to judge the goodness of fit on log-log plots.

110 oor discrimination (c=0.62) and calibration (goodness of fit P<0.001) for survival at 30 days.

111 statistic 0.75, 0.81 and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit p = 0.49, 0.53, respectively) suggesting

112 The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit p value was 0.28, and the area under the

113 r operator curve of 0.80 and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit P=0.22.

114 he CAD consortium clinical provided adequate goodness of fit (P=0.39).

115 e C-statistic (0.78) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit (p = 0.89) in the model-development coho

116 83 and 0.85, respectively), and calibration (goodness of fit, p = .33 and p = .16, respectively).

117 oups and the predictions based on InTIME II (goodness-of-fit, p=0.7).

118 on, by estimating appropriate cutoffs of the goodness of fit parameter at prescribed error rates.

119 ients from ONA subjects (quality parameters: goodness-of-fit parameter [R(2)] = 0.81 and goodness-of-

120 it by simultaneous minimization of the chi 2 goodness-of-fit parameter and maximization of a statisti

121 as output calculated secondary structures, a goodness-of-fit parameter for the analyses, and tabular

122 a linear calibration curve, which achieved a goodness of fit (R(2)) above 0.98.

123 odel (clinical variables only) increased the goodness-of-fit (R(2)) from 0.05 to 0.42 and 0.19, respe

124 corporated 7, 6, and 6 biomarkers to achieve goodness-of-fit R2 values of 0.769, 0.617, and 0.962, re

125 A goodness-of-fit (R2) statistic was used to determine the

126 A was demonstrated by the strength of IVIVC; goodness of fit ranged from 0.53 (DIN-I) to 0.74 (UBM-I)

127 ies for organisms justified primarily on the goodness of fit rather than on any biological mechanism.

128 Goodness-of-fit ratings of 10 DSM-IV-TR and 37 ICSD-2 in

129 od linearity (40-1000 pg PhIP/g hair) with a goodness-of-fit regression value of r(2) > 0.9978.

130 Analyses assessing goodness-of-fit, repeatability, and generality of the RF

131 A goodness-of-fit score was computed for 555,000 unique pa

132 After a test for goodness-of-fit, separate analyses for diabetic patients

133 x may simply reflect the limitations of this goodness of fit statistic to assess model calibration.

134 rval, 0.996-1.040) and a low Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic (11.62; p = .31).

135 ical model was 0.77, and the p value for the goodness-of-fit statistic was .34.

136 .76, and the p value for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was .60.

137 81), and the p value for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was .89.

138 The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was 10.6 (p = 0.225) for the i

139 C statistic, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, and Brier's score measured pr

140 6) and adequate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, p = 0.80).

141 calibration (nonsignificant Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, P =.54).

142 eristic curve of 0.736, with Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistics of 7.19; P = .52.

143 empirical distributions of two conventional goodness-of-fit statistics were affected by the values o

144 ination and calibration (C statistic = 0.86, goodness-of-fit statistics; p > .20).

145 els obtained within this study showed a high goodness-of-fit suggesting that the pH and the baking ti

146 The resulting goodness of fit suggests that neurons in motor cortex do

147 aike Information Criterion is used to assess goodness of fit, taking into account the number of unkno

148 tes of heritability; and (iv) we developed a goodness of fit test based on the correlation of viral l

149 (discrimination) and by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (calibration).

150 tatus Epilepticus Severity Score (chi-square goodness-of-fit test = 1.39; p = 0.845).

151 well as good calibration (as measured by the goodness-of-fit test comparing observed to expected coun

152 We also propose a goodness-of-fit test for discriminating rejections due t

153 d by this problem we propose a nonparametric goodness-of-fit test for two empirical distributions of

154 y of observed against predicted outcomes and goodness-of-fit test indicated good calibration of the s

155 The three-level goodness-of-fit test indicated satisfactory performance

156 A goodness-of-fit test revealed that DR-DQ haplotype shari

157 e representation of data, which are based on goodness-of-fit test statistics and standard errors of p

158 The goodness-of-fit test suggests that the phylogenetic mode

159 atio test of selection in conjunction with a goodness-of-fit test supports the selection hypothesis o

160 We also propose a goodness-of-fit test to aid investigators in determining

161 or the observed number of conversions, and a goodness-of-fit test to compare the observed number of c

162 el C index) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test) for prediction of in-hospital and

163 e (A) (purine to purine) (p<0.001, Pearson's goodness-of-fit test).

164 bration (P = .33 vs P = .02, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test).

165 From the goodness-of-fit test, a critical percentage for each adm

166 ve of 0.80) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, P = 0.102) when applied to the ADR

167 monstrated good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, P = 0.71) and discrimination (c-st

168 Using a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test, we identified 10 amino acid sites

169 g and validation samples as indicated by the goodness-of-fit test, which evaluated standardized nosoc

170 E are commonly performed using a simple chi2 goodness-of-fit test.

171 Goodness-of-fit testing indicated excellent model calibr

172 Segregation analysis and goodness-of-fit testing of genetic models suggest that r

173 f the validity of a scoring system--and chi2 goodness-of-fit testing with data from 197 patients.

174 ating characteristic curve) and calibration (goodness-of-fit testing).

175 tests, the chi 2 and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit tests.

176 These model fits can pass a host of standard goodness-of-fit tests and other model-selection diagnost

177 Goodness-of-fit tests and receiver operating characteris

178 However, goodness-of-fit tests found that even bounded power-law

179 Surprisingly, goodness-of-fit tests reveal that this class of phenotyp

180 ing 1- and 2-tissue-compartment models, with goodness-of-fit tests showing a preference for the 2-tis

181 Goodness-of-fit tests strongly supported the fit of the

182 evaluate discrimination and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests to evaluate calibration.

183 (T classes vs. T + 1 classes) and chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were evaluated using parametric bo

184 Goodness-of-fit tests were more sensitive than the recei

185 e show, however, that despite passing common goodness-of-fit tests, PP-GLMs estimated from data are o

186 g control, compared with the C statistic and goodness-of-fit tests.

187 assessed through prediction diagnostics and goodness-of-fit tests.

188 libration was assessed using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests.

189 f CLS parameters provided better measures of goodness of fit than Goldmann IOP parameters (mean, peak

190 tiplicative model had a substantially better goodness of fit than the additive model.

191 performed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for goodness of fit to generate odds ratios for possible ris

192 over all ages and provided close measures of goodness of fit to the data.

193 ully calibrated with an acceptable composite goodness-of-fit to clinical populations across multiple

194 mental dataset and compare the estimates and goodness-of-fit to those obtained by maximum likelihood

195 e-corrected stochastic block model, based on goodness-of-fit, to model networks of injection drug use

196 contributions and a slight reduction in the goodness-of-fit value (f ').

197 Goodness of fit values (R2) were near unity (.94 to .97)

198 Goodness of fit was indicated by the residual standard d

199 Excellent goodness-of-fit was also found for patient groups strati

200 ormation) are filtered on the basis of their goodness-of-fit with unassigned NOESY peak lists using t