. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 22.

Published in final edited form as: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019 Jul;2019:3502–3506. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2019.8857552

TABLE I.

Confusion matrices of the holdout set. The values are in percentage points. The complete dataset was analysed with the CV1 and CV2 patient-level cross validation approaches described in Sect. II-B. All possible combinations were explored for the uncertainty estimates.

CV1, 240 combinations, 78 ± 1.5% accuracy with a balance of 68%.
		Predicted label
		ES	PNES
True label	ES	23.1 ± 0.4%	8.0 ± 0.4%
True label	PNES	14.4 ± 1.3%	54.5 ± 1.3%
CV2, 3024 combinations, 78.6 ± 0.5% accuracy with a balance of 74%.
		Predicted label
		ES	PNES
True label	ES	19.3 ± 0.1 %	6.7 ± 0.1 %
True label	PNES	14.6 ± 0.05 %	59.3 ± 0.05 %