Table 2.
CNN, SVM, and RF model analyses summarized into case‐based results
| (A) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction | ||||||
| RG0 | RG1 | RG2 | RG3 | Total | ||
| Truth | RG0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| RG1 | 0 | 34 | 1 | 9 | 44 | |
| RG2 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 21 | |
| RG3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 28 | |
| Total | 11 | 34 | 20 | 38 | 103 | |
| (B) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction | ||||||
| RG0 | RG1 | RG2 | RG3 | Total | ||
| Truth | RG0 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| RG1 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 3 | 44 | |
| RG2 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 2 | 21 | |
| RG3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 26 | 28 | |
| Total | 6 | 51 | 14 | 32 | 103 | |
| (C) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction | ||||||
| RG0 | RG1 | RG2 | RG3 | Total | ||
| Truth | RG0 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| RG1 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 1 | 44 | |
| RG2 | 0 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 21 | |
| RG3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 25 | 28 | |
| Total | 6 | 50 | 16 | 31 | 103 | |
| (D) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction | ||||||
| RG0 | RG1 | RG2 | RG3 | Total | ||
| Truth | RG0 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| RG1 | 0 | 42 | 2 | 0 | 44 | |
| RG2 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | |
| RG3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 28 | |
| Total | 9 | 43 | 23 | 28 | 103 | |
(A) CNN model analysis result of test cases (accuracy: 86.4%; 95% CI: 78.3–92.4%; κ = 0.81). (B) SVM model analysis (only RG information was used) result of test cases (accuracy: 82.5%; 95% CI: 73.8–89.3%; κ = 0.74). (C) SVM model analysis (RG and subtype information was used) result of test cases (accuracy: 85.4%; 95% CI: 77.1–91.6%; κ = 0.78). (D) RF model analysis (RG and subtype information was used) result of test cases (accuracy: 97.1%; 95% CI: 91.7–99.4%; κ = 0.96).