TABLE 3. Full Feature Set Classification Results.
Evaluation Metric | ECNN | RF | P-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean±Std. Dev. | 95% CI | Mean±Std. Dev. | 95% CI | ||||
TPR | 0.746±0.036 | 0.719 | 0.773 | 0.746±0.005 | 0.742 | 0.750 | 0.986 |
TNR | 0.762±0.043 | 0.729 | 0.794 | 0.714±0.007 | 0.709 | 0.718 | 0.004 |
PPV | 0.766±0.024 | 0.748 | 0.785 | 0.710±0.005 | 0.706 | 0.713 | 2.27E-06 |
NPV | 0.744±0.019 | 0.730 | 0.758 | 0.750±0.003 | 0.747 | 0.752 | 0.404 |
Accuracy | 0.755±0.005 | 0.750 | 0.757 | 0.729±0.002 | 0.728 | 0.731 | 2.61E-11 |
Comparative analysis of predictive performance between ECNN and random forest - a traditional classification model with the capability to perform feature ranking and selection. As shown, ECNN provides statistically significant, superior accuracy whilst providing superior feature selection (see table VII)