Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 35 references

A New Lifetime Distribution: Exponentiated Exponential-Pareto-HalfNormal Mixture Model for Biomedical Applications

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes the EEPHND, a five-parameter mixture of an Exponentiated-Exponential-Pareto distribution and a Half-Normal distribution, and claims it reaches a concordance index of 0.9997 on a lung cancer survival dataset…

desk verdict A routine new mixture distribution whose headline CI is a no-covariate in-sample artifact; the empirical claims collapse, but the mixture construction is a legitimate small contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08313 v1 pith:B43DQYJP submitted 2025-06-10 stat.AP stat.ME

Oriyomi Ahmad Hassan , Aisha Tunrayo Maradesa , Abdulazeez Toyosi Alabi , Oyejide Surajudeen Salam , Ajani Busari , Akinwale Victor Famotire , Habeeb Abiodun Afolabi , Solomon Adeleke
show 1 more author
Abayomi Ayodele Akomolafe
This is my paper
classification stat.APstat.ME MSC 62E1062N0162F1062P10
keywords EEPHNDmixturedistributionExponentiated-Exponential-ParetoHalf-Normalsurvivalanalysisconcordanceindexlungcancermaximumlikelihood
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a new parametric lifetime distribution, EEPHND, built as a mixture of an Exponentiated-Exponential-Pareto component and a Half-Normal component. The authors aim to show that this model captures both early-time symmetric behavior and long-tail behavior while keeping closed-form expressions for the density, survival, hazard, moments, and reliability functions. They derive the distribution's properties, estimate parameters by maximum likelihood, validate on simulated data, and apply the model to a real lung cancer survival dataset. Their central empirical claim is that EEPHND fits that dataset better than competing parametric models by AIC, BIC, and CAIC, and achieves a concordance index of 0.9997, above the Cox proportional hazards model and the Kaplan-Meier estimator. If the claim holds, the model offers a fully parametric, closed-form alternative for survival and reliability modeling where classical distributions are too rigid.

What carries the argument

The EEPHND density is the finite mixture $f(x) = p_1 f_{\mathrm{EEPD}}(x;\alpha,\beta,\theta,\lambda) + p_2 f_{\mathrm{HN}}(x;\sigma)$, where the EEPD component is the exponentiated exponential-Pareto family with shape and scale parameters $\alpha, \beta, \theta, \lambda$, and the Half-Normal component has scale $\sigma$. Because the mixture is linear, the cumulative distribution function, survival function $S(x) = 1 - F(x)$, and hazard $h(x) = f(x)/S(x)$ all stay in closed form. That closed form is what carries the argument: it yields explicit raw moments, central moments, skewness, kurtosis, a moment generating function, reliability expressions, and a simple inverse-transform sampling scheme. Maximum likelihood estimation uses Newton-Raphson to solve the score equations numerically.

What would settle it

Refit the model to the lung cancer data with a censoring-adjusted likelihood and evaluate the concordance index on held-out data, for example via time-dependent AUC with inverse-censoring weights; if the index falls toward the Cox level (near 0.6) or the fitted parameters shift sharply, the headline 0.9997 is an artifact of in-sample fitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a tractable mixture distribution whose survival function stays closed-form. The density is $f(x) = p_1 f_{\mathrm{EEPD}}(x;\alpha,\beta,\theta,\lambda) + p_2 f_{\mathrm{HN}}(x;\sigma)$, combining the heavy-tailed Exponentiated-Exponential-Pareto component with the symmetric Half-Normal component, with the mixture weight $p_1$ governing the balance between early and late risk. The authors report that on simulated data the model tracks the empirical CDF closely, and on the lung cancer dataset it produces the lowest AIC, BIC, and CAIC among EEPD, Log-Normal, Gamma-Rayleigh, and Half-Normal. They also report a concordance index of 0.9997, which they interpret as superior predictive accuracy relative to Cox PH (0.6029) and Kaplan-Meier (0.9982). This is the first time, the paper argues, that a fully parametric mixture with closed-form survival and hazard functions matches or exceeds a nonparametric survival benchmark on this kind of data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the plain product-of-densities likelihood, with no censoring weights, is valid for the right-censored lung cancer data, and that the concordance index computed in-sample from the fitted survival curve measures real predictive accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EEPHND provides closed-form density, CDF, survival, hazard, moments, and reliability functions, making it directly usable for parametric survival and reliability analysis without numerical integration.
  • On simulated data, the model matches the empirical CDF better than a normal model, and on the lung cancer dataset it reports the lowest AIC, BIC, and CAIC among the compared parametric models.
  • If the reported concordance index holds, a fully parametric mixture can match or slightly beat the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier benchmark, suggesting that flexible parametric baselines are competitive for survival prediction.
  • The model gives comparable survival estimates to Cox PH and Kaplan-Meier at early time points, while adding closed-form shape and scale parameters that describe early- and late-risk subpopulations.
  • Because the model currently excludes covariates, it is positioned as a complement to Cox PH rather than a replacement: Cox contributes covariate interpretability, while EEPHND contributes a flexible closed-form baseline survival function.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fitted real-data mixture weight $p_1 \approx 0.01$ suggests the Half-Normal component dominates the lung cancer fit; testing the same dataset against a simpler Half-Normal-only model would clarify whether the heavy-tailed EEP component earns its additional parameters.
  • Comparing EEPHND's concordance index directly to Kaplan-Meier is conceptually unusual, since Kaplan-Meier is not a per-subject prediction rule; a fairer comparison would use censoring-adjusted time-dependent AUC or Brier scores on held-out subjects.
  • The closed-form survival function could be extended to incorporate covariates through a proportional-hazards or accelerated-failure-time link, which would combine the model's flexible baseline with the covariate interpretability currently provided only by Cox PH.
  • The reported $α = 0.0001$ estimate on real data indicates potential parameter instability; repeating the fit with profile likelihood or penalized estimation would show how much of the CI result depends on a single extreme parameter value.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new parametric lifetime distribution, the Exponentiated-Exponential-Pareto-HalfNormal Mixture (EEPHND), defined as a two-component mixture of an exponentiated exponential-Pareto distribution and a half-normal distribution. The authors derive closed-form expressions for the density, CDF, survival, hazard, odds, moments, and moment generating function, and present a maximum likelihood estimation procedure. They validate the model on simulated data and on the lifelines lung cancer dataset, reporting that EEPHND attains a concordance index (CI) of 0.9997, outperforming Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier. The manuscript's central empirical claim is that EEPHND offers superior predictive accuracy for survival data while retaining a closed-form parametric structure.

Significance. If the claims were correct, a flexible closed-form parametric mixture with a near-perfect concordance index on a standard lung cancer dataset would be a notable contribution, because it could serve as a tractable alternative to Cox or Kaplan-Meier baselines for population-level survival modeling. The paper does provide some useful algebraic groundwork: the mixture construction, the sampling algorithm, and the simulation-based demonstration of flexibility are all coherent in outline, and the theoretical development of the moments is clearly intended. However, the central statistical contributions are not currently supported. The likelihood in Eq. (32) ignores right censoring, the density in Eq. (2a) is inconsistent with the CDF in Eq. (4), and the reported CI of 0.9997 is an in-sample artifact of a model without covariates, not a measure of predictive discrimination. These issues invalidate the headline empirical claims, so the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Equations (2a), (4), and Sections 2.6–2.7] The PDF of the EEP component in Eq. (2a) is inconsistent with the CDF in Eq. (4). Differentiating F(x) = p1[1 - (1 - e^{-λ(x/β)^θ})^α] + p2 erf(x/(σ√2)) with respect to x gives a term proportional to αλθ/β (x/β)^{θ-1} e^{-λ(x/β)^θ} (1 - e^{-λ(x/β)^θ})^{α-1}. Equation (2a), however, contains the factor [1 - (1 - e^{-λ(x/β)^θ})^{α-1}], which is not the derivative of the stated CDF. This error propagates into the likelihood (Eq. 31), the hazard, the reliability, and the odds function in Sections 2.6–2.8, so the entire distributional framework is not mathematically self-consistent.
  2. [Section 2.10, Eq. (32)] The log-likelihood in Eq. (32) is the sum of log densities for all observations, with no adjustment for censoring. The real lung cancer dataset (Section 3.2.1) contains a censoring indicator, and a valid likelihood must be Σ[δ_i ln f(t_i) + (1-δ_i) ln S(t_i)]. As written, the MLE is only justified for complete data, and the fitted parameters reported in Table 2 (α=0.0001, θ=0.01, etc.) are not valid estimates for the right-censored lung cancer data. Because the subsequent AIC/BIC/CAIC comparisons in Table 3 and the survival estimates at t=0.012 depend on these parameters, the real-data results are unsupported.
  3. [Section 3.2.2, Table 2] The reported concordance index of 0.9997 is not a meaningful measure of predictive accuracy. EEPHND has no covariates, so the fitted model assigns the same survival function S_hat(t) to every patient; there is no patient-specific risk score. If the CI is computed by ranking patients by S_hat(t_i) at their own observed times, then, because S_hat is strictly decreasing in t, the ranking is a deterministic function of the observed survival time. Any such monotone survival function will produce a concordance index near 1, which explains why Kaplan-Meier also attains CI=0.9982. Out-of-sample, the model cannot distinguish between patients at any fixed horizon. The paper must define the score used for CI and, at minimum, evaluate predictive performance on a hold-out set or via cross-validation.
  4. [Section 2.6] The survival function is algebraically incorrect. The paper writes R(x) = 1 - [p1(1 - (1 - (1 - e^{-λ(x/β)^θ})^α)) + p2 erf(x/(σ√2))]. Since the CDF in Eq. (4) is p1(1 - (1 - e^{-λ(x/β)^θ})^α) + p2 erf(...), the correct survival function is 1 - p1(1 - (1 - e^{-λ(x/β)^θ})^α) - p2 erf(...). The extra complement inside the p1 term changes the functional form and invalidates the derived hazard, odds, and any results that use R(x).
  5. [Section 2.3 and 2.4] The skewness and kurtosis formulas contain a factual substitution error: Eq. (8) correctly gives E(X^r) = p1(β/(αλ)^{1/θ})^r Γ(r/θ + 1) + p2(...). However, Eq. (12) and the subsequent skewness and kurtosis expressions replace β/(αλ)^{1/θ} with β/√(θαλ), which changes the scale factor and is not algebraically equivalent. Consequently, the reported skewness and kurtosis coefficients are not the moments of the defined EEPHND distribution. This also propagates to the moment generating function in Section 2.5.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.1] The text states that survival times were 'rescaled to the range [0,1]' but does not justify this transformation or explain how it affects the likelihood, the parameters, or the interpretation of the survival estimates. Since the data are right-censored, the rescaling should be described in detail.
  2. [Section 2.10] Equation numbering jumps from Eq. (20) to Eq. (31) without any equations 21–30. This appears to be a formatting error, but it makes it difficult to follow the development of the likelihood.
  3. [Section 2.9] The inverse-transform sampling formula for the EEP component in Eq. (19) is X = β[-1/λ ln(1 - (1 - V)^{1/α})]^{1/θ}, which matches the CDF only if the EEP CDF is as in Eq. (4). Given the inconsistency between Eq. (2a) and Eq. (4), the sampling algorithm needs to be checked against the corrected density.
  4. [General] Several references are numbered inconsistently (e.g., [12] is cited both for the EEPD and for a different work in the reference list), and the reference list contains items not clearly cited in the text. The authors should carefully proofread the bibliography and the equation numbering before resubmission.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

EEPHND's headline predictive-accuracy claim (CI = 0.9997) reduces by construction: the model has no covariates, so the only way to obtain a near-perfect in-sample Concordance Index is to rank patients by the fitted monotone survival function evaluated at their own observed times, which forces the score near 1 regardless of fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.1, Table 2; Section 3.2.2]
    "Based on the Concordance Index (CI), EEPHND (CI = 0.9997) and Kaplan-Meier (CI = 0.9982) clearly outperform the Cox PH model (CI = 0.6029), suggesting superior predictive accuracy. The EEPHND model, despite being fully parametric, does not incorporate covariates in its current formulation."

    Table 2 explicitly lists EEPHND as handling no covariates, so every patient receives the same fitted parametric survival curve S(t). A Concordance Index requires a patient-level risk score, but the paper never defines one. If the score is S(t_i) at each patient's own observed time, then because the fitted S(t) is strictly decreasing, ranking by this score is identical to ranking by t_i, forcing Harrell's C to be nearly 1 by construction. The no-covariate Kaplan-Meier estimator also attaining CI = 0.9982 confirms that the near-perfect CI is an artifact of scoring by a monotone function of observed times, not evidence of predictive discrimination.

full rationale

The theoretical derivation of EEPHND is self-contained: the mixture density, CDF, moments, hazard, and MLE score equations are obtained by direct algebra from the stated mixture definition and the component distributions, so no circular step occurs there. The circularity is localized to the empirical predictive-accuracy claim. The paper fits a single parametric survival curve to the lung-cancer data with no covariates and then reports CI = 0.9997, whereas a covariate-free model cannot produce a meaningful patient-level concordance. The only way the reported near-perfect value can arise is to score each patient by the fitted monotone survival function at that patient's own observed event time; for any strictly decreasing S(t), this ranks patients by their observed times and forces C near 1. The near-identical Kaplan-Meier CI of 0.9982, from a model that also has no covariates and a monotone step survival curve, confirms the artifact. The paper's own statement that EEPHND does not incorporate covariates makes the claim that it 'clearly outperform[s]' Cox in predictive accuracy internally inconsistent. Self-citations to earlier work by the same authors are present but are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The uncensored log-likelihood in Eq. (32), which ignores the censoring indicators in the same dataset, is a separate data-validity concern rather than a derivation-circularity concern; it does not affect the assigned score because the predictive-accuracy claim already reduces by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends entirely on six fitted parameters, the assumption that the uncensored likelihood is appropriate for the right-censored data, and the assumption that an in-sample CI is a valid predictive metric. No parameter-free derivation or independent empirical validation is provided.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (EEP shape) = 0.0001
    Fitted by MLE to the lung cancer data; controls the shape of the EEP component.
  • beta (EEP scale) = 0.02
    Fitted by MLE; scale parameter for the EEP component.
  • theta (EEP exponent) = 0.01
    Fitted by MLE; exponent parameter for the EEP component.
  • lambda (EEP rate) = 13.79
    Fitted by MLE; rate parameter for the EEP component.
  • sigma (Half-Normal scale) = 0.46
    Fitted by MLE; scale parameter for the Half-Normal component.
  • p1 (mixture weight for EEP) = 0.01
    Fitted by MLE; mixing proportion for the EEP component, with p2 = 1 - p1. The real-data fit gives p1 very close to 0, meaning the model is essentially Half-Normal.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The survival times, including censored observations, are realizations from the EEPHND distribution, and the censoring mechanism is ignorable.
    The MLE in Section 2.10 and Eq. (32) uses a product of densities for all xi with no censoring adjustment. This is valid only if every observation is a complete event or if the censored likelihood is properly specified, which is not done.
  • ad hoc to paper The concordance index computed on the training data with the fitted monotone survival function measures predictive accuracy.
    The paper uses the in-sample CI of 0.9997 as evidence of predictive performance. Since the model's survival function is monotone, ranking by the model's score is equivalent to ranking by observed time, making the CI nearly equal to the maximum achievable on the data rather than an independent predictive check.
invented entities (1)
  • EEPHND mixture distribution
    purpose: To provide a flexible parametric lifetime distribution that captures early-time symmetry (via Half-Normal) and long-tail behavior (via EEP).
    The only evidence offered is in-sample simulation and a concordance index computed on the training data. No out-of-sample predictions, external benchmarks, or falsifiable handles outside the fitted data are provided, so the entity has no independent validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Lifetime Distribution: Exponentiated Exponential-Pareto-HalfNormal Mixture Model for Biomedical Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B43DQYJP

@misc{pith2026250608313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Lifetime Distribution: Exponentiated Exponential-Pareto-HalfNormal Mixture Model for Biomedical Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B43DQYJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08313}
}
read the original abstract

This study introduces the Exponentiated-Exponential-Pareto-Half Normal Mixture Distribution (EEPHND), a novel hybrid model developed to overcome the limitations of classical distributions in modeling complex real-world data. By compounding the Exponentiated-Exponential-Pareto (EEP) and Half-Normal distributions through a mixture mechanism, EEPHND effectively captures both early-time symmetry and long-tail behavior, features which are commonly observed in survival and reliability data. The model offers closed-form expressions for its probability density, cumulative distribution, survival and hazard functions, moments, and reliability metrics, ensuring analytical traceability and interpretability in the presence of censoring and heterogeneous risk dynamics. When applied to a real-world lung cancer dataset, EEPHND outperformed competing models in both goodness-of-fit and predictive accuracy, achieving a Concordance Index (CI) of 0.9997. These results highlight its potential as a flexible and powerful tool for survival analysis and biomedical engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08313 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of EEPHND characteristics under varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of different competing models (a), the CDF and EDCF plot (b) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The density of different candidate models (a), and comparison of survival models (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akinsete, F

    A. Akinsete, F. Famoye, C. Lee, The beta-pareto distribution, Statistics 42 (6) (2008) 547–563

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Ashour, M

    S. Ashour, M. Eltehiwy, Transmuted lomax distribution, American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics 1 (6) (2013) 121–127

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    A. A. Babatunde, M. Adeleke, In-silico studies and property model to investigate the binding effect of selected ligands on hiv integrase, Basrah Journal of Science (Bas J Sci) 38 (2) (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    S. B. Chhetri, A. A. Akinsete, G. Aryal, H. Long, The kumaraswamy transmuted pareto distribution, Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications 4 (2017) 1–24

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Bourguignon, I

    M. Bourguignon, I. Ghosh, G. M. Cordeiro, General results for the transmuted family of distributions and new models, Journal of Probability and Statistics 2016 (1) (2016) 7208425

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Eugene, C

    N. Eugene, C. Lee, F. Famoye, Beta-normal distribution and its applications, Communi- cations in Statistics-Theory and methods 31 (4) (2002) 497–512

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    W. T. Shaw, I. R. Buckley, The alchemy of probability distributions: beyond gram-charlier expansions, andaskew-kurtotic-normaldistributionfromaranktransmutationmap, arXiv preprint arXiv:0901.0434 (2009)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Gnedenko, I

    B. Gnedenko, I. V. Pavlov, I. A. Ushakov, Statistical reliability engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    work page 1999

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    I. W. Burr, Cumulative frequency functions, The Annals of mathematical statistics 13 (2) (1942) 215–232

    1942

  2. [10]

    Akomolafe, A

    A. Akomolafe, A. Maradesa, Betahalfnormal distribution and its properties, International journal of Advance Research and Publication 1 (4) (2017) 17–22

    2017

  3. [11]

    Merovci, L

    F. Merovci, L. Puka, Transmuted pareto distribution, in: ProbStat Forum, 2014, pp. 1–11. 19

    2014

  4. [12]

    Adeleke, A

    M. Adeleke, A. A. Ayodele, A. F. Barnabas, Exponentiated exponential lomax distribution and its properties, Mathematical Theory and Modeling (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Akomolafe, A

    A. Akomolafe, A. Maradesa, On the doubly truncated exponential pareto distribution, The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology 20 (1) (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    O. I. Shittu, K. A. Adepoju, On the beta-nakagami distribution, Progress in Applied Mathematics 5 (1) (2013) 49–58

    2013

  7. [15]

    Nadarajah, The exponentiated exponential distribution: a survey, AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis 95 (2011) 219–251

    S. Nadarajah, The exponentiated exponential distribution: a survey, AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis 95 (2011) 219–251

    2011

  8. [16]

    M. Pal, M. M. Ali, J. Woo, Exponentiated weibull distribution, Statistica 66 (2) (2006) 139–147

    2006

  9. [17]

    Adeleke, Beta-hyperhalfnormal distribution and its application, Basrah Journal of Sci- ence 38 (2) (2020) 131–156

    M. Adeleke, Beta-hyperhalfnormal distribution and its application, Basrah Journal of Sci- ence 38 (2) (2020) 131–156

    2020

  10. [18]

    R. M. I. Arshad, M. H. Tahir, C. Chesneau, F. Jamal, The gamma kumaraswamy-g family of distributions: theory, inference and applications, Statistics in Transition new series 21 (5) (2020) 17–40

    2020

  11. [19]

    Z. C. Huang, Toward closed form formulas for system reliability and confidence quantifi- cation, in: 2023 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  12. [20]

    Tang, T.-S

    J. Tang, T.-S. Su, Estimating failure time distribution and its parameters based on inter- mediate data from a wiener degradation model, Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 55 (3) (2008) 265–276

    2008

  13. [21]

    Akomolafe, A

    A. Akomolafe, A. Maradesa, H. Hassan, Beta-hjorth distribution and its properties, Pacific Journal of Science and Technology 20 (1) (2019) 96–102

    2019

  14. [22]

    A. R. Brentnall, J. Cuzick, Use of the concordance index for predictors of censored survival data, Statistical methods in medical research 27 (8) (2018) 2359–2373. 20

    2018

  15. [23]

    Elbatal, S

    I. Elbatal, S. Khan, T.Hussain, M. Elgarhy, N. Alotaibi, H. E. Semary, M. M. Abdelwahab, A new family of lifetime models: theoretical developments with applications in biomedical and environmental data, Axioms 11 (8) (2022) 361

    2022

  16. [24]

    Shahriari, H

    M. Shahriari, H. Shahrasbi, A. Zaretalab, Reliability analysis of lifetime systems based on weibull distribution, International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications 15 (1) (2024) 321–329

    2024

  17. [25]

    C. F. Hybels, D. G. Blazer, Epidemiology of late-life mental disorders, Clinics in geriatric medicine 19 (4) (2003) 663–696

    2003

  18. [26]

    Adegoke Afeez, M

    B. Adegoke Afeez, M. Adeleke, A. Habeeb, Statistical analysis of the inhibitory activities of triterpenoid derivatives against two selected diseases, Int. J. Res. Innov. Appl. Sci 6 (7) (2019) 130–135

    2019

  19. [27]

    Adegoke, G

    A. Adegoke, G. Azeez, A. Lawal, M. Imran, Theoretical studies of 1, 2, 3-triazole and isoxazole-linked pyrazole hybrids as antibacterial agents: an approach of docking and den- sity functional theory, Advanced Journal of Chemistry, Section B 3 (2) (2021) 148–159

    2021

  20. [28]

    A. B. Adegoke, R. A. Adepoju, A. T.-A. Khan, Molecular dynamic (md) simulation and modeling the bio-molecular structure of human udp glucose-6-dehydrogenase isoform 1 (hugdh) related to prostate cancer, Basrah Journal of Science 38 (3) (2020) 448–466

    2020

  21. [29]

    A. G. Olatunji, L. I. Ajerogba, I. M. Olalekan, A. B. Adegoke, R. A. Adepoju, Phyto- chemical screening of seed oils from some nigerian grown cucurbitaceae plant seeds, IOSR J. Appl. Chem 14 (1) (2021) 1–6

    2021

  22. [30]

    Adegoke, T

    A. Adegoke, T. Oyelowo, J. Sanusi, Computational studies of 1, 2, 3-triazoles derivatives against yellow fever virus: Dft based, European Modern Journal Studies 4 (2020) 94–103

    2020

  23. [31]

    G. M. Tallis, The moment generating function of the truncated multi-normal distribution, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 23 (1) (1961) 223–229

    1961

  24. [32]

    R. I. Jennrich, S. M. Robinson, A newton-raphson algorithm for maximum likelihood factor analysis, Psychometrika 34 (1) (1969) 111–123. 21

    1969

  25. [33]

    Davidson-Pilon, lifelines: survival analysis in python, Journal of Open Source Software 4 (40) (2019) 1317

    C. Davidson-Pilon, lifelines: survival analysis in python, Journal of Open Source Software 4 (40) (2019) 1317

    2019

  26. [34]

    McKinney, et al., pandas: a foundational python library for data analysis and statistics, Python for high performance and scientific computing 14 (9) (2011) 1–9

    W. McKinney, et al., pandas: a foundational python library for data analysis and statistics, Python for high performance and scientific computing 14 (9) (2011) 1–9

    2011

  27. [35]

    Jones, T

    E.Shaw, R.Arusell, B.Scheithauer, J.O’fallon, B.O’neill, R.Dinapoli, D.Nelson, J.Earle, C. Jones, T. Cascino, et al., Prospective randomized trial of low-versus high-dose radiation therapy in adults with supratentorial low-grade glioma: initial report of a north central cancer...

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.