Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of prediction accuracies achieved by RMA/RF and ANN (Ross et al., 2003).

From: Translating microarray data for diagnostic testing in childhood leukaemia

 

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 %

  1. *By cytogenetic analysis both cases that led to apparent inaccuracies are known to show the presence of BCR-ABL and >50 chromosomes.
  2. ‡ 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.
  3. † 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.