Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 14;15:661976. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.661976

Table 2.

Model accuracy for Patients 2 (word reading) and 5 (picture naming).

Accuracy (%) STFM+/ESM+ STFM−/ESM+ STFM−/ESM− STFM+/ESM− Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) AUC p-value Equation
Patient 2
HG all duration 76.5% 8 3 5 1 72.7% 83.3% 0.79 0.0465 (1)
HG PCA selected duartion 76.5% 8 3 5 1 72.7% 83.3% 0.7 0.0439 (2)
HG scaled by centrality 82.4% 10 1 4 2 90.9% 66.7% 0.83 0.134 (3) γ3 = 0
HG + CCEPs z-score 82.4% 9 2 5 1 81.8% 83.3% 0.83 0.103 (3) CCEPs = z-score
HG + CCEPs edges 82.4% 9 2 5 1 81.8% 83.3% 0.86 0.0747 (3) CCEPs = Edges
Patient 5
HG all duration 52.9% 9 1 0 7 90.0% 0.0% 0.31 0.881 (1)
HG PCA selected duartion 58.8% 8 2 2 5 80.0% 28.6% 0.39 0.952 (2)
HG scaled by centrality 82.4% 8 2 6 1 80.0% 85.7% 0.73 0.947 (3) γ3 = 0
HG scaled by CCEPs z-score 82.4% 8 2 6 1 80.0% 85.7% 0.8 0.0673 (3) CCEPs = z-score
HG scaled by CCEPs edges 88.2% 9 1 6 1 90.0% 85.7% 0.81 0.0462 (3) CCEPs = Edges

Accuracy (%), areas under ROC curve (AUC), and p-values were calculated using Classification Learner from Matlab. Sensitivity was calculated using STFM+ESM+ and STFM−ESM+ electrode numbers, and specificity using STFM−ESM− and STFM+ESM− electrodes. Results for Equation 1 are listed on the first row of each subtable; results for Equation 2 are listed on the second row; results for Equation 3 are listed in several steps on the rest of the rows.