Table 5.
Robustness of the method
| 3 subpopulations | 4 subpopulations | |||||
| λ | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 |
| Correct | 27 | 27 | 33 | 27 | 21 | 28 |
| Incorrect | 19 | 19 | 13 | 13 | 19 | 12 |
| A (in %) | 4.74 (4.68) | 4.15 (3.62) | 3.52 (3.70) | 7.70 (7.95) | 5.43 (4.23) | 5.59 (5.03) |
| B (in %) | 5.37 (6.89) | 5.59 (6.19) | 5.43 (7.13) | 7.43 (9.64) | 5.65 (5.35) | 6.93 (6.98) |
| Segments (in %) | 37.0 | 24.4 | 11.5 | 65.1 | 45.1 | 25.6 |
The table shows results for simulated data not fulfilling the assumption of sequential tumor evolution. With increasing λ, an increasing number of samples are incorrectly classified. A) The average absolute difference between the estimated and true percentages in the simulated samples when the number of subpopulations are predicted correctly, B) The average absolute difference between the estimated and true percentages of the normal subpopulation. Standard deviations in parenthesis. 'Segments' is the number of segments violating the model of sequential tumor evolution.