Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 29;22(3):393–401. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noz184

Table 2.

Comparison results of 10 TPOT models

Model Index Sensitivity Specificity Accuracy Kappa Score Hamming Loss AUC Average Precision
1 0.545455 0.785714 0.68 0.337748 0.32 0.792208 0.772134
2 0.545455 0.928571 0.76 0.493243 0.24 0.837662 0.850578
3 0.727273 0.857143 0.8 0.590164 0.2 0.896104 0.869712
4 0.727273 0.857143 0.8 0.590164 0.2 0.896104 0.899113
5 0.727273 0.857143 0.8 0.590164 0.2 0.850649 0.82549
6 0.636364 0.857143 0.76 0.503311 0.24 0.831169 0.83455
7# 0.636364 0.928571 0.8 0.58194 0.2 0.902597 0.911364
8 0.636364 0.857143 0.76 0.503311 0.24 0.844156 0.824954
9 0.727273 0.571429 0.64 0.290221 0.36 0.753247 0.768781
10 0.545455 0.857143 0.72 0.414716 0.28 0.733766 0.764365

#Model 7 was selected as the final TPOT model in this study.