Skip to main content
. 2016 Feb 22;11(2):e0138866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138866

Table 2. Cross-validated performance estimates for single-source and multi-source models.

Model (#) V-BAR (%) T-BAR (%) Sn (%) Sp (%) AUC-ROC CCC DOPTIMAL / Total
Single Source
CRF (1) 62.0 ± 1.4 61.8 ± 7.7 65.3 ± 12.7 58.3 ± 11.7 0.61 ± 0.12 # 1 ± 0 / 16
CAM (2) 77.9 ± 1.4 76.1 ± 7.2 76.9 ± 9.5 75.3 ± 11.2 0.83 ± 0.07 0.92 ± 0.03 15 ± 10 / 170
MRI (3) 71.4 ± 1.6 69.1 ± 8.5 68.5 ± 11.8 69.6 ± 12.4 0.76 ± 0.09 0.91 ± 0.03 10 ± 5 / 452
PPM (4) 56.0 ± 2.7 53.2 ± 10.0 51.2 ± 12.9 55.3 ± 14.1 0.54 ± 0.11 0.10 ± 0.31 40 ± 10 / 149
Multi-Source
CONCAT (5) 79.7 ± 1.4 80.0 ± 7.3 80.3 ± 10.6 79.8 ± 10.9 0.86 ± 0.07 0.93 ± 0.02 10 ± 3 / 787
MKL-Gaussian (6) 80.3 ± 1.3 79.9 ± 6.8 83.4 ± 9.9 76.4 ± 12.3 0.87 ± 0.07 0.95 ± 0.01 10 ± 3 / 787

For each model, several measures of predictive performance are shown (mean ± standard deviation), including balanced accuracy rate on the validation set (V-BAR) and the test set (T-BAR), sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), area under the curve (AUC), and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). DOPTIMAL is the optimal number of features (shown as median ± median absolute deviation); this parameter was determined via cross-validation (see text). The total number of potential features considered when building each model is shown for reference. Performance estimates for models 7–9 are shown in S1 Table. CRF = Clinical Risk Factors, CAM = Clinical Assessments/Markers, MRI = Magnetic Resonance Imaging, PPM = Plasma Proteomic Markers. Models 1–4: single linear kernel using features only from the given data source (CRF, CAM, MRI, PPM). Model 5 (CONCAT): single linear kernel, concatenating features from all data sources. Model 6 (MKL-Gaussian): 5 Gaussian kernels using features from all data sources. # Robust estimate of CCC could not be obtained for model 1 because only <10 probability sub-intervals could be defined when conducting calibration analysis.