Response to 'Support vector machines versus artificial neural network: Who is the winner?' [5]

Kidney International

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 84-85

  Abate, A ^a   Dal Moro, F ^b   Lanckriet, G R G ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; LETTER; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; POSITIVE FEEDBACK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; TRAINING;

EID: 33845717578     PISSN: 00852538     EISSN: 15231755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5001938     Document Type: Letter

References (2)

1. Tonello L. Support vector machines versus artificial neural network: who is the winner? Kidney Int 2006 (in press).
2. Dal Moro F, Abate A, Lanckriet GRG et al. A novel approach for accurate prediction of spontaneous passage of ureteral stones: support vector machines. Kidney Int 2006; 69: 157-160.