Table 6.
Comparative results between the model in Do et al. and the proposed model via LASSO
| |
|
|
Male |
|
Female |
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |
|
|
Predicted SC |
Sensitivity |
Predicted SC |
Sensitivity |
||||||
| TE | SE | SY | Total | TE | SE | SY | Total | |||||
|
Do et al. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
TE |
185 |
31 |
43 |
259 |
71.4% |
204 |
34 |
150 |
388 |
52.6% |
| Train |
True SC |
SE |
52 |
62 |
33 |
147 |
42.2% |
95 |
63 |
144 |
302 |
20.9% |
|
SY |
84 |
26 |
77 |
187 |
41.2% |
137 |
43 |
229 |
409 |
56.0% |
||
|
Total |
321 |
119 |
153 |
593 |
|
436 |
140 |
523 |
1099 |
|
||
| Accuracy |
54.6% |
45.1% |
||||||||||
| |
|
TE |
46 |
6 |
15 |
67 |
68.7% |
51 |
15 |
60 |
126 |
40.5% |
| Test |
True SC |
SE |
14 |
4 |
16 |
34 |
11.8% |
32 |
20 |
38 |
90 |
22.2% |
|
SY |
37 |
12 |
15 |
64 |
23.4% |
37 |
11 |
43 |
91 |
47.3% |
||
|
Total |
97 |
22 |
46 |
165 |
|
120 |
46 |
141 |
307 |
|
||
| Accuracy |
39.4% |
37.1% |
||||||||||
|
Proposed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
TE |
184 |
22 |
53 |
259 |
71.0% |
212 |
20 |
156 |
388 |
54.6% |
| Train |
True SC |
SE |
86 |
30 |
31 |
147 |
20.4% |
119 |
26 |
157 |
302 |
8.6% |
|
SY |
110 |
15 |
62 |
187 |
33.2% |
137 |
26 |
246 |
409 |
60.1% |
||
|
Total |
380 |
67 |
146 |
593 |
|
468 |
72 |
559 |
1099 |
|
||
| Accuracy |
46.5% |
44.0% |
||||||||||
| |
|
TE |
49 |
2 |
16 |
67 |
73.1% |
70 |
7 |
49 |
126 |
55.6% |
| Test | True SC |
SE |
16 |
10 |
8 |
34 |
29.4% |
30 |
7 |
53 |
90 |
7.8% |
|
SY |
41 |
3 |
20 |
64 |
31.3% |
43 |
1 |
47 |
91 |
51.6% |
||
|
Total |
106 |
15 |
44 |
165 |
|
143 |
15 |
149 |
307 |
|
||
| Accuracy | 47.9% | 40.4% | ||||||||||