Table 3.
Comparison of DAMIP/PSO results against other classification methods.
| Hospital 1 | Training Set: 15,000 | Blind Prediction Set: 12,534 | ||||
| 10-fold Cross Validation Accuracy | Blind Prediction Accuracy | |||||
| Classification Method | Overall | Non-return | Return | Overall | Non-return | Return |
| Linear Discriminant Analysis | 96.3% | 99.6% | 5.5% | 96.1% | 99.6% | 5.3% |
| Naïve Bayesian | 51.6% | 50.3% | 87.0% | 51.7% | 50.2% | 89.2% |
| Support Vector Machine | 96.5% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 96.2% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Logistic Regression | 96.5% | 99.8% | 5.9% | 96.3% | 99.8% | 8.3% |
| Classification Tree | 96.6% | 99.9% | 4.4% | 96.3% | 100.0% | 3.0% |
| Random Forest | 96.6% | 100.0% | 1.5% | 96.3% | 100.0% | 1.9% |
| Nearest Shrunken Centroid | 62.7% | 62.9% | 50.0% | 48.7% | 48.2% | 64.7% |
| DAMIP/PSO | 83.1% | 83.9% | 70.1% | 82.2% | 83.1% | 70.5% |
| Hospital 2 | Training Set: 20,000 | Blind Prediction: 19,327 | ||||
| Overall | Non-return | Return | Overall | Non-return | Return | |
| LDA | 96.2% | 100.0% | 0.1% | 96.0% | 100.0% | 0.3% |
| Naïve Bayesian | 53.4% | 52.2% | 83.9% | 54.4% | 53.2% | 84.2% |
| SVM | 96.3% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 96.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Logistic Regression | 96.3% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 96.1% | 99.9% | 3.3% |
| Classification Tree | 96.2% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 96.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Random Forest | 96.2% | 100.0% | 0.5% | 96.1% | 100.0% | 0.5% |
| Nearest Shrunken Centroid | 60.5% | 60.6% | 50.1% | 45.8% | 45.1% | 61.2% |
| DAMIP/PSO | 80.1% | 81.1% | 70.1% | 80.5% | 81.5% | 70.0% |