Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 7;22:319. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-02031-0

Table 2.

Evaluation of the diagnosis segmentation model using automatic extraction

Textual elements First round with the validation set (n = 496) Second round with the validation set (n = 488) Test set (n = 532)
TP FP FN P (%) R (%) F1 (%) TP FP FN P (%) R (%) F1 (%) TP FP FN P (%) R (%) F1 (%)
Tumor recurrence 134 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 134 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tumor location 477 0 4 100.0 99.2 99.6 476 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 531 0 1 100.0 100.0 100.0
Invasiveness 166 0 1 100.0 99.4 99.7 165 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 128 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Endocrine status 410 0 32 100.0 92.8 96.3 437 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 464 1 5 99.8 98.9 99.3
Tumor size 341 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 338 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 394 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Histopathology 477 0 19 100.0 96.2 98.1 488 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 529 0 3 100.0 99.4 99.7
Knosp grading 44 0 3 100.0 93.6 96.7 46 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Residual tumor 4 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Diagnostic confirmation 76 0 3 100.0 96.2 98.1 78 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 18 0 1 100.0 94.7 97.3
Refractoriness* 2 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - - - - -

*No PA diagnostic statement contained textual element of refractoriness in the test set