Table 3.
Patient | Class | CC SC | CC FN |
---|---|---|---|
1 | I | 0.29 | 0.94 |
2 | I | 0.20 | 0.91 |
3 | I | −0.07 | 0.33 |
4 | I | 0.59 | 0.76 |
5 | I | 0.60 | −0.25 |
6 | I | 0.61 | 0.94 |
7 | I | 0.22 | 0.89 |
8 | I | 0.75 | 0.93 |
9 | I | 0.39 | 0.58 |
10 | I | 0.32 | 0.71 |
11 | I | 0.59 | 0.93 |
12 | I | −0.02 | 0.97 |
13 | I | −0.18 | 0.76 |
14 | IV | −0.16 | −0.02 |
15 | IV | 0.55 | 0.94 |
16 | IV | −0.23 | −0.40 |
17 | IV | −0.41 | 0.46 |
18 | IV | 0.04 | 0.31 |
19 | IV | 0.59 | 0.64 |
20 | IV | 0.07 | −0.14 |
Classes have significantly different means in both, the soft clustering approach (p = 0.0403) and the functional network approach (p = 0.0051).