Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 10;16(Suppl 11):S3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-16-S11-S3

Table 3.

Comparison of classification accuracy using top ranked features for platform transition

Feature selection CV (#) SVM-RFE (#) RF_based_FS (#)
Classifier FC Equal-W Equal-F k-means FC Equal-W Equal-F k-means FC Equal-W Equal-F k-means

SVM 43.4 (500) 35.5 (80) 100 (700) 92.1 (300) 51.3 (400) 75.0 (200) 100 (1000) 73.6 (60) 48.6 (20) 39.4 (50) 97.3 (600) 92.1 (200)

RF 69.7 (300) 84.2 (1000) 97.3 (1000) 89.4 (600) 61.8 (60) 89.4 (700) 96.0 (1000) 81.5 (100) 73.6 (40) 85.5 (100) 97.3 (800) 88.1 (300)

NB 27.6 (800) 30.2 (10) 92.1 (500) 75 (200) 35.5 (40) 38.1 (10) 85.5 (600) 67.1 (60) 35.5 (200) 34.2 (20) 94.7 (600) 78.9 (90)

PAM 44.7 (300) 26.3 (10) 92.1 (400) 76.3 (300) 44.7 (900) 39.4 (600) 89.4 (400) 60.5 (60) 46.0 (10) 34.2 (10) 93.4 (500) 82.8 (200)

# Number of variables in the classification model

Comparison of classification methods trained on exon-array (342 samples) and tested on RNA-seq (76 samples). The best accuracy (percentage of samples correctly predicted) achieved by each combination of the four classifiers and three feature selection schemes are presented, with number of features used in the best fitted model is shown in parenthesis. The models were built by stepwise addition of feature variables into the model by considering the top 1,000 ranked feature variables. Highest accuracy, achieved with the least number of features, for each classification method is marked in bold.