Comparison with Cox model’s performance Sample Clauses

Comparison with Cox model’s performance. The Xxx proportional hazards regression model assumes proportionality of hazards across different prognostic groups over time. Any interaction between predictors and/or time needs to be manually specified by the user (e.g., fractional polynomials, splines). This may be difficult when a large set of prognostic factors is available. ML techniques such as ANNs, which are flexible and data-adaptive, relax this assumption and can naturally incorporate multi-way interactions between the input features. This characteristic together with the rise of computational power and the collection of large-volumes of data (with electronic healthcare records) has contributed to the popularity of XXXx. However, the Cox model remains the most common choice for survival data. Therefore, any new prediction model including SNNs should be compared to the traditional Cox model to be considered in clinical practice. Of 24 studies, 19 reported comparisons between Xxx models and SNNs. We assessed whether interaction terms were specified in the models to obtain optimal predictive performance in Xxx regression. Fifteen studies (78.9%) did not consider interaction terms between the predictors, information was unclear for 2 studies (10.5%), and 2 simulation studies considered interaction terms when applicable (10.5%). This result suggests suboptimal attention to the development of Xxx models, which in turn undermines inferences made regarding comparative SNN and Cox model performance. For datasets with a large number of prognostic factors (p > 10), a number of interaction terms can be selected based on external knowledge and clinical expertise (see [6]). Secondly, the author’s claim for the performance of SNN was investigated. Among the 19 studies comparing SNN and Cox model’s performance, 9 (47.4%) claimed better predictive performance of the SNN, while 5 reported a similar or better performance (26.3%) of the SNN compared to the Cox model. The performance was similar to Xxx’x model in 5 studies (26.3%). These result may be influenced by publication bias, as articles with favorable results are more likely to be published than articles with poor results. A fair comparison between SNN and Cox model approaches to modelling survival data should include model val- idation with proper evaluation measures, a comparison of calibration curves and the inclusion of non-linear terms and interactions for Xxx models, where applicable and possible. On the preface of his textbook on clinical predic- tio...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Comparison with Cox model’s performance

  • EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out -

  • Services Performance All services are performed using generally recognized commercial practices and standards. Customer agrees to provide prompt notice of any such service concerns and HP will re-perform any service that fails to meet this standard.

  • Past Performance The Government will evaluate the contractor's performance on the NETCENTS-2 Orders provided in Exhibit B, CDRL B001. The PCO will determine the quality of the work performed based on an integrated assessment of data obtained in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) and information obtained from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with customers, program managers and/or contracting officers for NETCENTS-2 task orders. Based on the contractor performance records above, the PCO will determine if there is an expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required efforts under the unrestricted Application Services contract.

  • Work Performance All work in performance of this Lease shall be done by skilled workers or mechanics and shall be acceptable to the RECO. The RECO may reject the Lessor’s workers 1) if such are unlicensed, unskilled, or otherwise incompetent, or 2) if such have demonstrated a history of either untimely or otherwise unacceptable performance in connection with work carried out in conjunction with either this contract or other Government or private contracts.

  • Product Performance Contractor hereby warrants and represents that the Products acquired by the Authorized User under the terms and conditions of this Contract conform to the specifications, performance standards and documentation in the Authorized User Agreement., and the documentation fully describes the proper procedure for using the Products. Contractor further warrants and represents that if the Products acquired by the Authorized User pursuant to an Authorized User Agreement under this Contract include software application development, software application customization, software programming, software integration or similar items (“Software Deliverables”) then such Software Deliverables shall be free from defects in material and workmanship and conform with all requirements of the Contract and Authorized User Agreement for the warranty period of one (1) year from the date of acceptance of the completed project (“Project warranty period”). Contractor also warrants that the Products, in the form provided to the Authorized User, do not infringe any copyright, trademark, trade secret or other right of any third party.

  • OUTCOME IF GRANTEE CANNOT COMPLETE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE Unless otherwise specified in this Statement of Work, if Grantee cannot complete or otherwise comply with a requirement included in this Statement of Work, HHSC, at its sole discretion, may impose remedies or sanctions outlined under Contract Attachment C, Local Mental Health Authority Special Conditions, Section 7.09 (Remedies and Sanctions).

  • CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE 2.21.1 Contractor shall make citizen satisfaction a priority in providing services under this Agreement. Contractor shall train its employees to be customer service-oriented and to positively and politely interact with citizens when performing contract services. Contractor’s employees shall be clean, courteous, efficient, and neat in appearance and committed to offering the highest quality of service to the public. If, in the Director’s opinion, Contractor is not interacting in a positive and polite manner with citizens, he or she shall direct Contractor to take all remedial steps to conform to these standards

  • Service Performance All Services provided by the Agency shall be performed in a diligent, safe, courteous, and timely manner in accordance with this Contract and the Associated federal requirements.

  • Substantial Performance This Contract shall be deemed to be substantially performed only when fully performed according to its terms and conditions and any written amendments or supplements.

  • Excuse from performance of obligations If the Affected Party is rendered wholly or partially unable to perform its obligations under this Agreement because of a Force Majeure Event, it shall be excused from performance of such of its obligations to the extent it is unable to perform on account of such Force Majeure Event; provided that:

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!