Table 6. Labeling accuracy results obtained with 3 sources, unsupervised (Convex-NMF).
| STE, Training set | STE, Test set | LTE, Training set | LTE, Test set | ||
| A2 vs. GL | Total | 90.7% (98/108) | 90.0% (36/40) | 79.6% (78/98) | 60.0% (24/40) |
| A2 | 95.5% (21/22) | 100.0% (10/10) | 100% (20/20) | 100.0% (10/10) | |
| GL | 89.5% (77/86) | 86.7% (26/30) | 74.4% (58/78) | 46.7% (14/30) | |
| BER | 0.075 | 0.067 | 0.128 | 0.267 | |
| A2 vs. ME | Total | 96.7% (58/60) | 85.0% (17/20) | 88.2% (45/51) | 85.0% (17/20) |
| A2 | 100.0% (22/22) | 100.0% (10/10) | 100.0% (20/20) | 100.0% (10/10) | |
| ME | 94.7% (36/38) | 70.0% (7/10) | 80.6% (25/31) | 70.0% (7/10) | |
| BER | 0.026 | 0.150 | 0.097 | 0.150 |
Summary of the labeling accuracy obtained for the training and test set when three sources were calculated in a fully unsupervised way (Convex-NMF), for two discrimination problems at STE and LTE. They include the accuracy (total and by tumor type); the number of correctly labeled samples from the total, in parentheses; and BER of the classification.