Table 3.
Labelling accuracy results obtained using Convex-NMF.
| LTE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A2, NO(2SS) | A2, ME, NO(3SS) | A2, GL, NO(3SS) | A2, MM, NO(3SS) | A2, AG, NO(4SS) | A2, AG, MM(4SS) |
| Total:100%(35/35) | Total:84.8%(56/66) | Total:71.1%(81/113) | Total:96.7%(87/90) | Total:77.8%(112/144) | Total:73.9%(136/184) |
| A2:100%(20/20) | A2:100%(20/20) | A2:100%(20/20) | A2:100%(20/20) | A2:100%(20/20) | A2:95.0%(19/20) |
| NO:100%(15/15) | ME:67.7%(21/31) | GL:59.0%(46/78) | MM:94.5%(52/55) | AG:70.6%(77/109) | AG:64.2%(70/109) |
| NO:100%(15/15) | NO:100%(15/15) | NO:100%(15/15) | NO:100%(15/15) | MM:85.5%(47/55) | |
| STE | |||||
| A2, NO(2SS) | A2, ME, NO(3SS) | A2, GL, NO(3SS) | A2, MM, NO(3SS) | A2, AG, NO(4SS) | A2, AG, MM(4SS) |
| Total:93.2%(41/44) | Total:91.5%(75/82) | Total:88.5%(115/130) | Total:89.2%(91/102) | Total:92.9%(156/168) | Total:86.3%(176/204) |
| A2:86.4%(19/22) | A2:77.3%(17/22) | A2:81.8%(18/22) | A2:77.3%(17/22) | A2:81.8%(18/22) | A2:90.9%(20/22) |
| NO:100%(22/22) | NO:100%(22/22) | GL:87.2%(75/86) | MM:89.7%(52/58) | AG:93.5%(116/124) | AG:87.9%(109/124) |
| ME:94.7%(36/38) | NO:100%(22/22) | NO:100%(22/22) | NO:100%(22/22) | MM:81.0%(47/58) | |
Summary of the labelling accuracy using Convex-NMF with K-means initialisation for A2, NO; A2, ME, NO; A2, GL, NO; A2, MM, NO; A2, AG, NO; and A2, AG, MM, at LTE and STE. They include the accuracy (total and by tumour type), and the number of correctly labelled samples from the total, in parentheses. The number of source signals (SS) used in the experiments is indicated in parentheses