Mehmet Dincay Yar
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:
- Bilgi Karakas
Department of General Surgery, Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (University of Health Sciences), Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
2 shared publications - Huseyin Mert Tezcan
Department of General Surgery, Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (University of Health Sciences), Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
2 shared publications - Baki Türkoğlu
Department of General Surgery, Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (University of Health Sciences), Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
1 shared publication - Irem Bigat
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Technology, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara 06510, Turkey
1 shared publication - Mehmet Feyzi Akşahin
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Turkey
1 shared publication - Osman Erogul
Department of Biomedical Engineering, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 8 August 2026
- Published by Springer Nature in Discover Medicine
- Vol. 3 (1) , 104
Delayed duodenal perforation following gallstone-induced afferent loop obstruction due to a cholecystoduodenal fistula: a case report
- 8 August 2026
- Published by Springer Nature in Discover Medicine
- Vol. 3 (1) , 104
Open AccessDelayed duodenal perforation following gallstone-induced afferent loop obstruction due to a cholecystoduodenal fistula: a case report
- Open Access
- 18 August 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 15 (16) , 2065
SHAP-Based Identification of Potential Acoustic Biomarkers in Patients with Post-Thyroidectomy Voice Disorder
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.
- 18 August 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 15 (16) , 2065
Open AccessSHAP-Based Identification of Potential Acoustic Biomarkers in Patients with Post-Thyroidectomy Voice Disorder
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.