2018
DOI: 10.3791/57738
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Selecting Multiple Biomarker Subsets with Similarly Effective Binary Classification Performances

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The previous study suggested the existence of multiple solutions with the similarly good performance for a machine learning problem [ 39 ], [ 40 ]. Difference correlation coefficients evaluated the MCI prediction problem from different perspectives.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The previous study suggested the existence of multiple solutions with the similarly good performance for a machine learning problem [ 39 ], [ 40 ]. Difference correlation coefficients evaluated the MCI prediction problem from different perspectives.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other ROIs like lingual gyrus [37] and postcentral cingulate cortex [38] demonstrated to have reduced metabolism levels and were observed in the MCI or AD patients. The previous study suggested the existence of multiple solutions with the similarly good performance for a machine learning problem [39,40]. Difference correlation coefficients evaluated the MCI prediction problem from different perspectives.…”
Section: F Brain Rois Associated With the MCI Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The balanced accuracy [bAcc = (Sn + Sp)/2] was usually utilized to evaluate the classification model without generating bias for a dataset with significantly different numbers of positive and negative samples (Feng et al, 2018). Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC) was defined as MCC = (TP × TN-FP × FN)/sqrt[(TP + FP) × (TP + FN) × (TN + FP) × (TN + FN)], where sqrt() is the squared root (Xu et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2018; Zhao et al, 2018).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study used six performance metrics to evaluate how a classification algorithm performed on the investigated binary classification problem. Five metrics were sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), overall accuracy (Acc), balanced accuracy (bAcc), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) (Feng, et al, 2018;Xu, et al, 2018). These five performance metrics were defined as:…”
Section: Evaluation Methods Of Performancementioning
confidence: 99%