|
Comparison of prediction accuracies achieved by RMA/RF and ANN (Ross et al., 2003). |
|||
| RMA/RF |
RMA/RF‡ |
Ross et al.† |
|
|
|
|||
| Analysis method |
RF |
RF |
ANN |
| Samples in test set |
104 |
25 |
25 |
|
|
|||
| BCR-ABL accuracy (samples) |
86.7 % (15)* |
89 % (4)* |
87.5 % (4)* |
| E2A-PBX1 accuracy (samples) |
100 % (18) |
100 % (5) |
100 % (5) |
| Hyperdip>50 accuracy (samples) |
100 % (17) |
99.8 % (4) |
95 % (4) |
| MLL accuracy (samples) |
100 % (20) |
100 % (5) |
100 % (5) |
| T-ALL accuracy (samples) |
100 % (14) |
100 % (2) |
100 % (2) |
| TEL-AML1 accuracy (samples) |
100 % (20) |
100 % (5) |
96 % (5) |
|
|
|||
| Overall accuracy |
98.1 % |
98.2 % |
96.4 % |
|
*By cytogenetic analysis both cases that led to apparent inaccuracies are known to show the presence of BCR-ABL and >50 chromosomes. ‡ Average prediction accuracies from 100 independent analyses. For each analysis a new training and test set was chosen and discriminating probe sets were selected using the new training set. † Average prediction accuracies from 10 independent analyses. For each analysis a new training and test set was chosen and discriminating probe sets were selected using the new training set. | |||
Hoffmann et al. BMC Cancer 2006 6:229 doi:10.1186/1471-2407-6-229 |
|||