These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
331 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34678561)
1. Predicting crop root concentration factors of organic contaminants with machine learning models. Gao F; Shen Y; Brett Sallach J; Li H; Zhang W; Li Y; Liu C J Hazard Mater; 2022 Feb; 424(Pt B):127437. PubMed ID: 34678561 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Direct Prediction of Bioaccumulation of Organic Contaminants in Plant Roots from Soils with Machine Learning Models Based on Molecular Structures. Gao F; Shen Y; Sallach JB; Li H; Liu C; Li Y Environ Sci Technol; 2021 Dec; 55(24):16358-16368. PubMed ID: 34859664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Predictive modeling of blood pressure during hemodialysis: a comparison of linear model, random forest, support vector regression, XGBoost, LASSO regression and ensemble method. Huang JC; Tsai YC; Wu PY; Lien YH; Chien CY; Kuo CF; Hung JF; Chen SC; Kuo CH Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2020 Oct; 195():105536. PubMed ID: 32485511 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. High Resolution Mapping of Soil Properties Using Remote Sensing Variables in South-Western Burkina Faso: A Comparison of Machine Learning and Multiple Linear Regression Models. Forkuor G; Hounkpatin OK; Welp G; Thiel M PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0170478. PubMed ID: 28114334 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Examining plant uptake and translocation of emerging contaminants using machine learning: Implications to food security. Bagheri M; Al-Jabery K; Wunsch D; Burken JG Sci Total Environ; 2020 Jan; 698():133999. PubMed ID: 31499345 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of crop water stress index of wheat by using machine learning models. Yadav A; Narakala LM; Upreti H; Das Singhal G Environ Monit Assess; 2024 Sep; 196(10):970. PubMed ID: 39312101 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Predicting chemical ecotoxicity by learning latent space chemical representations. Gao F; Zhang W; Baccarelli AA; Shen Y Environ Int; 2022 May; 163():107224. PubMed ID: 35395577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Deep learning models for predicting plant uptake of emerging contaminants by including the role of plant macromolecular compositions. Bagheri M; McKenney S; Ware JG; Farshforoush N J Hazard Mater; 2024 Dec; 480():135921. PubMed ID: 39305592 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Improved prediction of the bioconcentration factors of organic contaminants from soils into plant/crop roots by related physicochemical parameters. Li Y; Chiou CT; Li H; Schnoor JL Environ Int; 2019 May; 126():46-53. PubMed ID: 30776749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prediction of Plant Uptake and Translocation of Engineered Metallic Nanoparticles by Machine Learning. Wang X; Liu L; Zhang W; Ma X Environ Sci Technol; 2021 Jun; 55(11):7491-7500. PubMed ID: 33999596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. From data to harvest: Leveraging ensemble machine learning for enhanced crop yield predictions across Canada amidst climate change. Mahdizadeh Gharakhanlou N; Perez L Sci Total Environ; 2024 Nov; 951():175764. PubMed ID: 39182775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Contribution of molecular structures and quantum chemistry technique to root concentration factor: An innovative application of interpretable machine learning. Zhu T; Zhang Y; Li Y; Tao T; Tao C J Hazard Mater; 2023 Oct; 459():132320. PubMed ID: 37604035 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A Comparative Assessment of the Influences of Human Impacts on Soil Cd Concentrations Based on Stepwise Linear Regression, Classification and Regression Tree, and Random Forest Models. Qiu L; Wang K; Long W; Wang K; Hu W; Amable GS PLoS One; 2016; 11(3):e0151131. PubMed ID: 26964095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Do we need different machine learning algorithms for QSAR modeling? A comprehensive assessment of 16 machine learning algorithms on 14 QSAR data sets. Wu Z; Zhu M; Kang Y; Leung EL; Lei T; Shen C; Jiang D; Wang Z; Cao D; Hou T Brief Bioinform; 2021 Jul; 22(4):. PubMed ID: 33313673 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Machine learning techniques for forecasting agricultural prices: A case of brinjal in Odisha, India. Paul RK; Yeasin M; Kumar P; Kumar P; Balasubramanian M; Roy HS; Paul AK; Gupta A PLoS One; 2022; 17(7):e0270553. PubMed ID: 35793366 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predictive Abilities of Machine Learning Techniques May Be Limited by Dataset Characteristics: Insights From the UNOS Database. Miller PE; Pawar S; Vaccaro B; McCullough M; Rao P; Ghosh R; Warier P; Desai NR; Ahmad T J Card Fail; 2019 Jun; 25(6):479-483. PubMed ID: 30738152 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison between linear regression and four different machine learning methods in selecting risk factors for osteoporosis in a Chinese female aged cohort. Tzou SJ; Peng CH; Huang LY; Chen FY; Kuo CH; Wu CZ; Chu TW J Chin Med Assoc; 2023 Nov; 86(11):1028-1036. PubMed ID: 37729604 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prediction of organic contaminant uptake by plants: Modified partition-limited model based on a sequential ultrasonic extraction procedure. Wu X; Zhu L Environ Pollut; 2019 Mar; 246():124-130. PubMed ID: 30537650 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Optimizing neural networks for medical data sets: A case study on neonatal apnea prediction. Shirwaikar RD; Acharya U D; Makkithaya K; M S; Srivastava S; Lewis U LES Artif Intell Med; 2019 Jul; 98():59-76. PubMed ID: 31521253 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]