Table 2.
Test performance of each method.
| HML (Approach 1) | HML (Approach 2) | CART | Random forest | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.574 ± 0.079 | 0.765 ± 0.011 | 0.682 ± 0.024 (p=0.003)1 |
0.725 ± 0.012 (p=0.231)1 |
| Specificity | 0.848 ± 0.036 | 0.825 ± 0.008 | 0.806 ± 0.011 (p=0.221)1 |
0.834 ± 0.005 (p=0.685)1 |
| Precision | 0.694 ± 0.055 | 0.695 ± 0.010 | 0.658 ± 0.011 (p=0.014)1 |
0.705 ± 0.005 (p=0.710)1 |
| Accuracy | 0.760 ± 0.037 | 0.792 ± 0.006 | 0.760 ± 0.008 (p=0.002)1 |
0.795 ± 0.003 (p=0.956)1 |
| F1 | 0.610 ± 0.039 | 0.721 ± 0.008 | 0.663 ± 0.015 (p<0.001)1 |
0.713 ± 0.006 (p=0.853)1 |
| # of leaf nodes | 3.8 ± 1.095 | 4.2 ± 0.236 | 26.2 ± 2.145 (p<0.001)2 |
– |
Each value shows mean ± SE of performances obtained from 5-fold CV.
1Tukey's HSD tests were performed on three groups: HML (Approach 2), CART, and random forest, and the p-value between HML and the corresponding algorithm is shown.
2The p-value between HML (Approach 2) and CART by Student's t-test is shown.