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.