Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug 20;20(Suppl 5):141. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01150-w

Table 6.

Performance comparison when using each of the 3 AEs — Basic AE, Denoising AE and Sparse AE — and for breast cancer detection, on the UCI’s Wisconsin Breast Cancer dataset

Top Layers (AEs) Accuracy (%) MCC Precision (%) Recall (%) F1 score
Approach A AE: Encoding Layers 97.54 ±2.06 0.95 ±0.04 98.67 ±2.92 94.81 ±5.20 96.60 ±2.90
AE: Complete Autoencoder 96.49 ±2.62 0.93 ±0.05 96.83 ±3.71 93.83 ±7.12 95.11 ±3.93
DAE: Encoding Layers 95.43 ±3.81 0.90 ±0.08 98.38 ±3.48 89.13 ±8.73 93.36 ±6.05
DAE: Complete Autoencoder 93.32 ±3.78 0.86 ±0.08 98.19 ±2.93 83.46 ±8.52 90.09 ±5.98
SAE: Encoding Layers 97.19 ±2.22 0.94 ±0.05 97.69 ±3.15 94.81 ±5.20 96.14 ±3.13
SAE: Complete Autoencoder 97.02 ±2.35 0.94 ±0.05 97.70 ±2.42 94.31 ±7.03 95.80 ±3.64
Approach B AE: Encoding Layers 99.12 ±1.24 0.98 ±0.03 98.71 ±2.86 99.05 ±2.01 98.84 ±1.59
AE: Complete Autoencoder 98.60 ±1.38 0.97 ±0.03 97.75 ±2.38 98.57 ±3.21 98.11 ±1.91
DAE: Encoding Layers 97.72 ±2.62 0.95 ±0.06 98.08 ±2.50 95.74 ±6.13 96.81 ±3.83
DAE: Complete Autoencoder 97.19 ±2.64 0.94 ±0.06 96.39 ±4.57 96.23 ±4.91 96.22 ±3.62
SAE: Encoding Layers 97.19 ±2.22 0.94 ±0.04 96.15 ±5.24 96.71 ±3.19 96.31 ±2.78
SAE: Complete Autoencoder 96.66 ±2.10 0.93 ±0.04 97.66 ±3.28 93.44 ±5.47 95.39 ±2.96

All the presented results are the 10-fold cross-validation mean values, at the validation set, by selecting the best performing model according to its F1 score. The first row presents the results for Approach A, where we fix the resulting weights of the AE pre-training; the second one shows the results for Approach B, where we allow the subsequent fine-tuning of all the weights of the model. The highlighted values correspond to the combination that led to the overall best result (importing only the encoding layers a Basic AE into the classification network, and allowing subsequent fine-tune, when training for the classification task.)