Amanote Research
Register
Sign In
Figure 7: Comparison of Training and Validation Accuracy Between Parameters Using All Dataset and (A) KNN, (B) SVC, (C) LG, (D) MLP and (E) K-Means.
doi 10.7717/peerj-cs.270/fig-7
Full Text
Open PDF
Abstract
Available in
full text
Date
Unknown
Authors
Unknown
Publisher
PeerJ
Related search
Figure 4: Assembly Accuracy Comparison Between Two Alternative Strategies on CAMI2 Simulated Dataset (A and B) and the MetaHIT Human Microbiome Dataset (C and D).
Figure 7: Effect of MDA on Non-Templated Amplification on Reads (A, D), Assembled Loci (B, E) and Loci in the Final Dataset (C, F).
Figure 3: Clustering Accuracy of (A) the CROSS Dataset, (B) the Lankershim Dataset.
Fuzzy C-Means Partition Cluster Analysis and Validation Studies on a Subset of CiteScore Dataset
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering
Mechanics of Materials
Electronic Engineering
Civil
Structural Engineering
Electrical
Computer Science
Comparison of kNN and K-Means Optimization Methods of Reference Set Selection for Improved CNV Callers Performance
BMC Bioinformatics
Biochemistry
Applied Mathematics
Computer Science Applications
Structural Biology
Molecular Biology
Figure 3: Correlation Between the Soil pH (A, B, C, D, E, F) and the Plant Nutrient Concentration and Uptake.
Figure 6: (A) Behavior of Accuracy in Terms of Number of Clusters and (B) Confusion Matrix With Best Results (Clusters = 11) Using K-Means Algorithm.
Figure 5: Summary Results of Cross-Validation for the Meuse (Zinc) and SIC 1997 (Rainfall) Data Sets (A) and Variogram Models for CV Residuals (B–C). Comparison of Accuracy Plots for the Meuse Data Set (D–E).
Figure 1: Analysis of DEmRNAs (A, C) and DEcircRNAs (B, D).
