Cross-validation Sample Clauses

Cross-validation classification performance predicting mental health and QoL deterioration at M12 based on M0 and M3 data‌ 1.2.3.1.1. Prediction of Mental health deterioration‌ As shown in Table FI, Model 2 correctly predicted one-year mental health deterioration for 84% of patients. Moreover, the model identified the patients who had stable good mental health status at M12 with approximately 85% certainty. The shape of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve shown in Figure F2 (AUC=0.876) illustrates a fair balance between sensitivity and specificity. Most important predictors included variables measured shortly after disease diagnosis, as well as variables reported at the 3-month follow-up (that is, during treatment; see Figure F3). They comprised life-style characteristics (at least moderate, regular exercise), trait resilience and other psychological characteristics presumed to be associated with illness adaptation, emotional status of the patient (particularly on month 3), and specific, illness-related physical symptoms. In addition, three biological variables ranked among the important predictors: thrombocyte count, NLR, and serum creatinine levels (although the latter did not vary significantly between groups; see Table FII). Descriptive statistics of the selected continuous variables are shown in Table FΙII, whereas group data on exercise at M0, which also emerged as an important predictor, is shown in Table FIV. As expected, the Stable Mental health group reported significantly lower symptomatology and better global QoL at both M0 and M3 (p<0.001). Basic sociodemographic characteristics of the two groups are listed in Table FIV.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Cross-validation classification performance predicting mental health and QoL deterioration at M18 based on M0 and M3 data‌ 1.2.3.2.1. Prediction of Mental health deterioration‌ As shown in Table FV, Model 6 correctly predicted 18-month overall mental health deterioration for 76% of patients. Moreover, the model identified the patients who maintained mild symptomatology through M18 with approximately 77% certainty (AUC=0.853; see Figure F6). As in the case of the prediction of M12 mental health deterioration both M0 and M3 variables featured among the highest-ranking ones (see Figure F7). They comprised primarily of psychological characteristics presumed to be associated with illness adaptation (such as optimism, perceived emotional support by others, and coping styles) as well as emotional status and subjective QoL of the patient (particularly on month 3). Importantly, the two biological indices which were among the top-ranking variables in predicting M12 mental health deterioration, also feature among the most important features in Model 6 (NLR and platelet count at M0). In addition, at least moderate exercise at the time of diagnosis, absence of treatment side effects and physical symptoms, and engaging in well-being promoting activities at M3 also contributing to remaining free of symptoms of anxiety and depression one and half year post diagnosis.

Related to Cross-validation

  • Validation ‌ Within one (1) year after the effective date of this contract, the Agency shall submit this contract to a court of competent jurisdiction for determination of its validity by a proceeding in mandamus or other appropriate proceeding or action, which proceeding or action shall be diligently prosecuted to final decree or judgment. In the event that this contract is determined to be invalid by such final decree or judgment, the State shall make all reasonable efforts to obtain validating legislation at the next session of the Legislature empowered to consider such legislation, and within six (6) months after the close of such session, if such legislation shall have been enacted, the Agency shall submit this contract to a court of competent jurisdiction for redetermination of its validity by appropriate proceeding or action, which proceeding or action shall be diligently prosecuted to final decree or judgment.

  • Contract Supremacy In the case of a conflict between the express terms of this Agreement and the terms of the ISO Agreement, the express terms of this Agreement shall prevail.

  • Technical Assistance The State agrees to provide technical assistance regarding the State’s rules, regulations and policies to the Sub- Recipient and to assist in the correction of problem areas identified by the State’s monitoring activities.

  • MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS The Employer agrees, subject to the following provisions, that all conditions of employment in his/her individual operation relating to wages, hours of work, overtime differentials and general working conditions shall be maintained at not less than the highest standards in effect at the time of the signing of this Agreement, and the conditions of employment shall be improved whenever specific provisions for improvement are made elsewhere in this Agreement.

  • Outsourcing 28.1. The Company provides its Clients with trading services using an internet based trading system. The Company has outsourced the development, physical hosting, maintenance and updating of its online Trading Platform to a foreign entity. The Company’s Clients will not have any direct contact with this entity and the Company will take all reasonable steps to ensure the security of all the data regarding the identity of its Clients. The Client hereby acknowledges and accepts the fact that the Company outsources such activities.

  • GENERAL SERVICE DESCRIPTION Service Provider currently provides active medical, pharmacy(Rx) and dental administration for coverages provided through Empire and Anthem (medical), Medco(Rx), MetLife(dental) and SHPS (FSA) (Empire, Anthem, Medco, MetLife and SHPS collectively, the “Vendors”) for its U.S. Active, Salaried, Eligible Employees (“Covered Employees”). Service Provider shall keep the current contracts with the Vendors and the ITT CORPORATION SALARIED MEDICAL AND DENTAL PLAN (PLAN NUMBER 502 EIN 00-0000000) and the ITT Salaried Medical Plan and Salaried Dental Plan General Plan Terms (collectively, the “Plans”) and all coverage thereunder in full force through December 31, 2011 for Service Recipient’s Covered Employees. All claims of Service Recipient’s Covered Employees made under the Plans and incurred on or prior to December 31, 2011 the (“2011 Plan Year”) will be adjudicated in accordance with the current contract and Service Provider will continue to take such actions on behalf of Service Recipient’s Covered Employees as if such employees are employees of Service Provider. All medical, dental, pharmacy and FSA claims of Service Recipient’s Covered Employees made under the Plans (the “Claims”) will be paid by the Vendors on behalf of the Service Provider. Service Recipient will pay Service Provider for coverage based on 2011 budget premium rates previously set for the calendar year 2011 and described in the “Pricing” section below. Service Recipient will pay Service Provider monthly premium payments for this service, for any full or partial months, based on actual enrollment for the months covered post-spin using enrollments as of the first (1st) calendar day of the month, commencing on the day after the Distribution Date. Service Recipient will prepare and deliver to Service Provider a monthly self xxxx containing cost breakdown by business unit and plan tier as set forth on Attachment A, within five (5) Business Days after the beginning of each calendar month. The Service Recipient will be required to pay the Service Provider the monthly premium payments within ten (10) Business Days after the beginning of each calendar month. A detailed listing of Service Recipient’s employees covered, including the Plans and enrollment tier in which they are enrolled, will be made available to Service Provider upon its reasonable request. Service Provider will retain responsibility for executing funding of Claim payments and eligibility management with Vendors through December 31, 2013. Service Provider will conduct a Headcount True-Up (as defined below) of the monthly premiums and establish an Incurred But Not Reported (“IBNR”) claims reserve for Claims incurred prior to December 31, 2011 date, but paid after that date, and conduct a reconciliation of such reserve. See “Headcount True-Up” and “IBNR Reconciliation” sections under Additional Pricing for details.

  • FABRICATION Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

  • Procurement All goods, works and services required for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Financing shall be procured in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Schedule 2 to the Financing Agreement.

  • Subcontracting for Medicaid Services Notwithstanding any permitted subcontracting of services to be performed under this Agreement, Party shall remain responsible for ensuring that this Agreement is fully performed according to its terms, that subcontractor remains in compliance with the terms hereof, and that subcontractor complies with all state and federal laws and regulations relating to the Medicaid program in Vermont. Subcontracts, and any service provider agreements entered into by Party in connection with the performance of this Agreement, must clearly specify in writing the responsibilities of the subcontractor or other service provider and Party must retain the authority to revoke its subcontract or service provider agreement or to impose other sanctions if the performance of the subcontractor or service provider is inadequate or if its performance deviates from any requirement of this Agreement. Party shall make available on request all contracts, subcontracts and service provider agreements between the Party, subcontractors and other service providers to the Agency of Human Services and any of its departments as well as to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.