Sentences with phrase «validated prediction model»

By relying on this well - validated prediction model, the team was able to include subjects who live in unmonitored and less - populated areas so that the effects of air pollution on all 60 million people could be analyzed regardless of whether they lived in urban, suburban, or rural areas.

Application of the CFU - GM assay to predict acute drug - induced neutropenia: an international blind trial to validate a prediction model for the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of myelosuppressive xenobiotics

Not exact matches

To validate their computer modeling predictions, researchers performed experiments in human cancer cell lines, mouse liver samples and primary human hepatocytes.

This allowed them to make very specific predictions that are different from those produced by classical theory and should make it possible to validate the new model experimentally within a year, Yildiz says.

Linear and nonlinear computational models must be validated in order to establish confidence in the prediction and understanding of tokamak disruption physics with and without mitigation.

Further, these machine learning based results can be used to validate the climate models so we have confidence in the future predictions of these models.

There are examples where it is — for instance in the response to Pinatubo (for which validated climate model predictions were made ahead of time — Hansen et al 1992)-- but this is not in general going to be true.

You actually code and run models, check your prediction error, validate and optimize your models.

I also think most people don't really appreciate the various motivations for building models, running models, the process of testing and validating models and hence in the end why some models and some predictions are more worthy or credible than others.

And are those predictions in different cases then tested against observations again and again to either validate those models or generate ideas for potential improvements?

This hierarchy of scientific models widely respected in Modern Science includes laws (a theory for which all implied predictions have been validated) and conjectures (incomplete hypotheses which have not been contradicted.

I can not speak for «the bulk of climate skeptics» (I presume you do not really mean «climate skeptics», but rather «CAGW skeptics»), but I have always concluded that the IPCC model - derived predictions for ECS were exaggerated by a factor of 2 - 3, and this position now seems validated.

What is needed is to rediscover and implement the standard that models must make novel, nontrivial predictions (hypotheses) which are subsequently validated by measurement (theories).

Scientists proposing catastrophic majority anthropogenic global warming models (a.k.a. «Climate change») bear the burden of proof of providing clear robust evidence supporting validated model predictions of anthropogenic warming with strong significant differences from this climatic null hypothesis.

Such ignorant politicians do not realize that the very crux of the scientific method is to be scepital of any theory, or model prediction, until it is validated by independent experiments.

In as much as none of the model scenarios can be validated, all predictions about future climate conditions amount to nothing more that, «Wait to see if our predictions come true; you'll see then.

Science assesses these models according to whether future measurements (observations reduced to facts) validate their predictions.

The data will also help validate the wind predictions derived from computer models, which have thus far relied on extremely limited real - world information.

Pekka you write «As every prediction is always based on a model of some kind, we may well judge it prudent to pick one or several of the less than perfectly validated models to make one or more predictions»

Sometimes we wish to have the best possible prediction even, when we have no thoroughly validated models at disposal.

As it issues a projection but not predictions, the Loehle - Scafetta model is insusceptible to being validated.

adopting models that have not been validated or even hide or underestimate uncertainty in their predictions results in increased risks

(d) In decision making, adopting models that have not been validated or even hide or underestimate uncertainty in their predictions, results in increased risks.

It is that we haven't seen convincing evidence or arguments that don't appear to have been contrived, fudged, based on invalid calculation methods, or based on models (or proxies) that haven't been validated, by people who haven't owned up to past errors in prediction but are apparently continually rewriting history so that the latest weather calamity is suddenly discovered to have been predicted all along.

Well, neither correlation nor validated model prediction allows you to say such things.

In Modern Science, triggering, sounding, or endorsing a public alarm without a theory (a model whose relevant, non-trivial predictions have been validated) is unethical.

It seems to me more of that is going on lately, but often I get the feeling that (some) scientists are seeking obscure evidence that validates the model's predictions rather than proving the model's assumptions.

Speaking to my comment only, I cited two good sources explaining in great detail that models are in fact carefully evaluated and, yes, validated, and that moreover they do have a solid record of successful predictions versus real - world observations.

Climate models make many validated predictions.

There are examples where it is — for instance in the response to Pinatubo (for which validated climate model predictions were made ahead of time — Hansen et al 1992)-- but this is not in general going to be true.

Some models, e.g. INM - CM 3.0 predict an increase until 2025, but in any case since the models start their «prediction run» in about year 2000, there has not been enough time to validate or invalidate their claims on a statistically valid basis.

But hey in the disciplines I work, howerver chaotic or non-linear your systems are you need to have validated predictions (I do nt mean the hindcasting kind) before your theory / model will be taken seriously.