Skip to main content

Table 1 Distribution of the number of false classifications of the 27 paired samples.

From: A robust tool for discriminative analysis and feature selection in paired samples impacts the identification of the genes essential for reprogramming lung tissue to adenocarcinoma

  False classifications MWT EDGE PAM Students t-test Wilcoxon test
Up-regulated in tumours 0 1628 1109 938 1087 1054
  1 0 202 211 184 187
  2 0 27 73 20 14
  3 0 1 25 0 0
  4 0 0 6 0 0
  9 0 0 1 0 0
Down- regulated in tumours 8 0 0 1 0 0
  7 0 0 1 0 0
  6 0 0 2 0 0
  5 0 0 12 0 0
  4 0 3 29 2 2
  3 0 16 67 15 10
  2 0 64 118 68 64
  1 0 317 314 343 372
  0 1201 1090 1031 1110 1126
  # of the probe sets with 2 or more misclassified pairs 0 111 335 105 90
  total # of probe sets 2829 2829 2829 2829 2829
  percent of probe sets with 2 or more misclassified pairs 0 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.03
  1. Comparison of the classification accuracy of highly discriminative 2829 probe sets (selected using MWT on cross-normalized signal intensity values with a stringent 100% accuracy criteria and a bootstrap p-value cut-off<0.05) with top-level 2829 probe sets identified by standard Wilcoxon sign ranked test (WT), EDGE, PAM, and student&#8217s t-test. While the ECD classifier was derived using cross-normalized dataset as input, the classifiers derived using PAM, EDGE, WT and t-test used the original MAS5-normalized data as input. However the classification accuracy in terms of the number of probe sets with 2 or more anomalous fold changes was estimated using the cross-normalized dataset.
Back to article page

BMC Genomics

ISSN: 1471-2164

Contact us