TABLE 5.

Evaluating Classification Performances of LDA, QDA, and SVM Classifiers on the Selected Features for Differentiation of Each of Two Tissue Subregions From Each Other, ie, NT From IE, NT From AT, and IE From AT^a

Classifiers	Feature combinations	NT from IE				NT from AT				IE from AT
		Sens.	Spec.	Acc.	AUC (95% CI)	Sens.	Spec.	Acc.	AUC (95% CI)	Sens.	Spec.	Acc.	AUC (95% CI)
LDA	CBV, FLAIR, MD, T2_ISO	90.0	86.8	89.1	94.8 (86.4–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	57.9	99.8	90.1	92.0 (80.0–100)
	CBV, MD	91.1	65.9	84.0	92.6 (83.1–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	62.3	99.6	91.1	91.5 (79.0–100)
	CBV, D, T2_ISO	86.1	94.1	88.5	91.7 (80.5–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	50.6	100	88.6	91.4 (78.6–100)
	CBV, D	89.6	64.2	82.5	90.0 (77.7–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	50.6	100	88.6	91.3 (78.3–100)
QDA	CBV, FLAIR, MD, T2_ISO	85.2	99.5	89.3	92.3 (83.9–99.9)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	84.1	94.4	92.0	89.2 (72.5–100)
	CBV, MD	86.6	73.4	82.9	80.0 (61.6–98.0)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	66.7	99.6	92.0	83.1 (83.1–100)
	CBV, D, T2_ISO	81.4	89.8	93.9	85.6 (71.7–99.0)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	83.3	99.8	96.0	91.6 (91.6–100)
	CBV, D	85.5	83.4	85.1	84.5 (68.6–99.3)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	61.1	100	91.1	80.6 (59.1–98.9)
SVM	CBV, FLAIR, MD, T2_ISO	94.6	89.8	93.3	98.8 (95.9–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	85.4	100	96.6	100 (100–100)
	CBV, MD	93.7	65.2	85.6	94.6 (86.8–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	69.5	100	92.9	93.5 (80.2–100)
	CBV, D, T2_ISO	88.3	86.9	88.0	92.9 (82.9–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	50.6	100	88.6	91.1 (77.8–100)
	CBV, D	91.1	61.4	82.7	91.4 (79.8–100)	100	100	100	100 (100–100)	50.6	100	88.6	91.6 (78.7–100)

^aThe gray-shaded cells with bold-type face numbers or letters indicate highest diagnostic performances of classifiers for all three discrimination.