Table 1.
Training size | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | |
| |||||
LDA | 78.7 | 80.4 | 81.9 | 83.4 | |
| |||||
Z-LDA | 77.0 | 81.7 | 83.0 | 84.0 | |
| |||||
EZ-LDA (different thresholds) |
10% | 81.2∗ | 83.6∗ | 84.9∗ | 85.8∗ |
20% | 81.5∗ | 83.8∗ | 85.1∗ | 86.0∗ | |
30% | 81.6∗ | 83.9∗ | 85.2∗ | 86.3∗ | |
40% | 81.6∗ | 84.0∗ | 85.5∗ | 86.4∗ | |
50% | 81.8∗ | 84.1∗ | 85.5∗ | 86.4∗ | |
60% | 81.4∗ | 83.9∗ | 85.3∗ | 86.2∗ | |
70% | 81.3∗ | 83.6∗ | 85.1∗ | 86.2∗ | |
80% | 81.1∗ | 83.2∗ | 84.8∗ | 85.8∗ | |
90% | 80.3∗ | 82.8∗ | 84.2∗ | 85.2∗ |
The second column denotes the threshold used in EZ-LDA.
∗ denotes the classification accuracy of EZ-LDA is significantly higher than that of Z-LDA (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05).