Showing 661 - 680 results of 1,249 for search 'Computer assess decision making', query time: 0.17s Refine Results
  1. 661
  2. 662
  3. 663
  4. 664
  5. 665
  6. 666
  7. 667
  8. 668

    Enhanced Semantic Retrieval with Structured Prompt and Dimensionality Reduction for Big Data by Donghyeon Kim, Minki Park, Jungsun Lee, Inho Lee, Jeonghyeon Jin, Yunsick Sung

    Published 2025-07-01
    “…After generating prompts utilizing two methods, silhouette scores were computed to assess the quality of embedding clusters. …”
    Get full text
    Article
  9. 669
  10. 670
  11. 671
  12. 672
  13. 673

    Structured reporting of neuroendocrine tumors in PET/CT using [18F]SiTATE - impact on interdisciplinary communication by Anna Hinterberger, Lukas Trupka, Sophia Kortbein, Ricarda Ebner, Nicola Fink, Matthias F. Froelich, Dominik Nörenberg, Carmen Wängler, Björn Wängler, Ralf Schirrmacher, Adrien Holzgreve, Matthias Brendel, Stefanie Corradini, Christoph Auernhammer, Johannes Rübenthaler, Freba Grawe

    Published 2025-02-01
    “…All reports were evaluated by a radiologist and a surgeon through a questionnaire to determine their contribution to facilitating clinical decision-making and to assess their completeness, linguistic quality, and overall quality. …”
    Get full text
    Article
  14. 674
  15. 675
  16. 676

    A fair and interpretable deep learning approach for healthcare access prediction in underserved communities by Akash Saxena, Saurabh Sharma, Punit Kumar Johari, Ankur Pandey, Sunil Kumar

    Published 2025-07-01
    “…Moreover, we conduct extensive simulations to assess the trade-offs between model complexity, fairness, and computational efficiency. …”
    Get full text
    Article
  17. 677
  18. 678
  19. 679
  20. 680

    Enhancing consistency of AHP-based expert judgements: A new approach and its implementation in an interactive tool by Shimon Frish, Irit Talmor, Omer Hadar, Maxim Shoshany, Aviad Shapira

    Published 2025-06-01
    “…The proposed tool has broad potential applications in various complex decision-making scenarios. In future developments, the tool could also be adapted to incorporate clustering techniques for managing complex criteria sets, or extended to support group decision making by assessing consensus levels and recommending minimal adjustments. • AHP-based pairwise comparisons of n criteria by experts are recorded in an n × n reiprocal preference matrix whose eigenvalu λmax is used to compute the consistency ratio (CR) of the resulting priority vector. • An iterative greedy algorithm developed to enhance the consistency of the solution in case CR>10% enforces minimal intervention by limiting the adjustment to single-step modifications on unaltered pairwise comparisons only. • The algorithm is implemented in an interactive, user-friendly software tool, ensuring transparency and expert engagement through real-time, traceable consistency refinement.…”
    Get full text
    Article