Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 18;7:46450. doi: 10.1038/srep46450

Table 3. Comparison and correlation of the ConvNet UHCMC/CWRU and ConvNet HUP classifiers in terms of Dice, PPV, NPV, TPR, TNR, FPR and FNR.

  Dice PPV NPV TPR TNR FPR FNR
TCGA
 ConvNetHUP 0.7494 ± 0.2071 0.7071 ± 0.2254 0.9658 ± 0.0514 0.8600 ± 0.1705 0.9188 ± 0.0805 0.0812 ± 0.0805 0.1400 ± 0.1705
 ConvNetUHCMC/CWRU 0.7068 ± 0.2061 0.6464 ± 0.2188 0.9629 ± 0.0584 0.8676 ± 0.1706 0.8880 ± 0.0824 0.1120 ± 0.0824 0.1324 ± 0.1706
 r 0.8733 0.9258 0.8109 0.6345 0.8055 0.8055 0.6345
NC
 ConvNetHUP N/A N/A 1 ± 0 N/A 0.9716 ± 0.0693 0.0284 ± 0.0693 N/A
 ConvNetUHCMC/CWRU N/A N/A 1 ± 0 N/A 0.9546 ± 0.0816 0.0454 ± 0.0816 N/A
 r N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.6876 0.6876 N/A

Note that for the normal cases considered, not all the performance measures are shown because the NC data cohort did not have cancer annotations.