Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biomed Signal Process Control. 2023 Aug 21;86(Pt C):105358. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105358

Table 3:

Screening performance of similarity indices

Classifier
Feature
TP FP TN FN Acc. Sen. Spe. AUROC
(95% CI)
SI_m3 20 17 43 21 0.624 0.488 0.717 0.73(0.62,0.82)
SI_m4 28 15 45 13 0.723 0.683 0.750 0.81(0.71,0.88)
SI_m5 28 15 45 13 0.723 0.683 0.750 0.78(0.69,0.86)
SI_m6 29 13 47 12 0.752 0.707 0.783 0.78(0.68,0.86)
SI_m7 31 10 50 10 0.802 0.756 0.833 0.79(0.69,0.87)
SI_m8 27 13 47 14 0.733 0.659 0.783 0.78(0.66,0.87)
SI_m9 25 13 47 16 0.713 0.610 0.783 0.77(0.64,0.85)
SI_m10 23 14 46 18 0.683 0.561 0.767 0.76(0.66,0.85)

SI_mi, i = 3,4, …,10: Similarity index of i-bit word, TP: true positive, FP: false positive, TN: true negative, FN: false negative, Acc.: accuracy, Sen.: sensitivity, Spe.: specificity, AUROC: area under ROC, CI: confidence interval