MYMehmet Dincay Yar

Mehmet Dincay Yar

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Mehmet Dincay Yar has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Delayed duodenal perforation following gallstone-induced afferent loop obstruction due to a cholecystoduodenal fistula: a case report

    by Baki Türkoğlu, Mehmet Dinçay Yar, Bilgi Karakaş, Hüseyin Mert Tezcan

  • Open Access

    SHAP-Based Identification of Potential Acoustic Biomarkers in Patients with Post-Thyroidectomy Voice Disorder

    by Salih Celepli, Irem Bigat, Bilgi Karakas, Huseyin Mert Tezcan, Mehmet Dincay Yar, Pinar Celepli, Mehmet Feyzi Aksahin, Oguz Hancerliogullari, Yavuz Fuat Yilmaz, Osman Erogul

    Objective: The objective of this study was to identify potential robust acoustic biomarkers for functional post-thyroidectomy voice disorder (PTVD) that may support early diagnosis and personalized treatment strategies, using acoustic analysis and explainable machine learning methods. Methods: Spectral and cepstral features were extracted from /a/ and /i/ voice recordings collected preoperatively and 4–6 weeks postoperatively from a total of 126 patients. Various Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Boosting models were trained. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was applied to enhance interpretability. SHAP values from training and test sets were compared via scatter plots to identify stable candidate biomarkers with high consistency. Results: GentleBoost (AUC = 0.85) and LogitBoost (AUC = 0.81) demonstrated the highest classification performance. Performance metrics across all models were evaluated for statistical significance. DeLong’s test was conducted to assess differences between ROC curves. The features iCPP, aCPP, and aHNR were identified as stable candidate biomarkers, exhibiting consistent SHAP distributions in both training and test sets in terms of direction and magnitude. These features showed statistically significant correlations with PTVD (p < 0.05) and demonstrated strong effect sizes (Cohen’s d = −2.95, −1.13, −0.60). Their diagnostic relevance was further supported by post hoc power analyses (iCPP: 1.00; aCPP: 0.998). Conclusions: SHAP-supported machine learning models offer an objective and clinically meaningful approach for evaluating PTVD. The identified features may serve as potential biomarkers to guide individualized voice therapy decisions during the early postoperative period.