Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content

Table 4 Performance comparison of classification techniques

From: Application of genetic algorithms and constructive neural networks for the analysis of microarray cancer data

 

GA

SFS

 

Classifier

Parameters

mean ± std

#genes

mean ± std

#genes

Leukemia

LDA

-

99.959 ± 0.07

12

97.609 ± 2.86

2

 

SVM

{polynomial,15,1,0.6,0}

99.982 ± 0.06

8

99.918 ± 0.52

4

 

NaiveBayes

{1,0}

99.974 ± 0.03

12

98.060 ± 2.19

3

 

C-MANTEC

{1000,0.01,4.5}

99.038 ± 0.25

7

98.837 ± 2.46

3

 

kNN

{1,Euclidean}

99.994 ± 0.02

10

99.844 ± 0.77

5

 

MLP

{3,0.5,50}

99.944 ± 0.05

5

95.784 ± 3.38

2

Lung

LDA

-

99.971 ± 0.03

5

99.057 ± 1.00

3

 

SVM

{linear,10,-,-,-}

100 ± 0

11

99.828 ± 0.70

3

 

NaiveBayes

{1,0}

99.998 ± 0.01

4

99.991 ± 0.07

3

 

C-MANTEC

{100000,0.25,2}

99.678 ± 0.08

6

99.673 ± 0.94

2

 

kNN

{1,Euclidean}

99.969 ± 0.02

4

99.969 ± 0.22

4

 

MLP

{4,0.1,50}

99.996 ± 0.01

4

99.778 ± 0.79

2

Colon

LDA

-

98.676 ± 0.35

11

87.179 ± 6.15

2

 

SVM

{polynomial,1,1,0.4,2}

89.917 ± 1.26

20

91.738 ± 5.21

5

 

NaiveBayes

{0,1}

90.583 ± 0.49

15

89.076 ± 7.79

4

 

C-MANTEC

{10000,0.01,1}

94.315 ± 0.48

11

87.593 ± 6.69

2

 

kNN

{3,cosine-similarity}

95.060 ± 0.38

19

93.577 ± 4.43

6

 

MLP

{5,0.3,50}

99.026 ± 0.30

12

88.733 ± 5.51

2

Breast

LDA

-

99.788 ± 0.12

15

74.169 ± 6.52

1

 

SVM

{polynomial,7,2,0.001,2}

99.744 ± 0.14

31

81.029 ± 5.80

3

 

NaiveBayes

{0,0}

97.759 ± 0.23

27

73.499 ± 6.34

1

 

C-MANTEC

{10000,0.01,1.5}

97.342 ± 0.39

23

76.645 ± 6.53

1

 

kNN

{3,Euclidean}

97.485 ± 0.30

34

80.975 ± 6.37

2

 

MLP

{4,0.3,50}

99.828 ± 0.09

18

79.191 ± 6.43

2

Ovarian

LDA

-

99.980 ± 0.01

4

100 ± 0

3

 

SVM

{polynomial,9,1,0.2,0}

100 ± 0

4

99.978 ± 0.13

4

 

NaiveBayes

{1,0}

99.951 ± 0.03

5

99.980 ± 0.13

4

 

C-MANTEC

{1000,0.3,1.5}

99.844 ± 0.05

4

99.659 ± 0.75

3

 

kNN

{1,Euclidean}

99.984 ± 0.01

4

99.982 ± 0.11

3

 

MLP

{5,0.3,50}

99.999 ± 0

3

100 ± 0

3

Prostate

LDA

-

99.720 ± 0.12

9

95.677 ± 2.81

4

 

SVM

{polynomial,5,1,3,1}

99.428 ± 0.31

20

98.622 ± 1.79

5

 

NaiveBayes

{0,0}

98.817 ± 0.16

14

98.331 ± 2.13

7

 

C-MANTEC

{1000,0.25,4}

98.681 ± 0.24

8

95.351 ± 3.40

4

 

kNN

{3,cosine-similarity}

99.633 ± 0.11

20

97.146 ± 2.28

6

 

MLP

{3,0.5,50}

99.996 ± 0.02

12

96.921 ± 2.37

4

  1. Performance comparison among the two different feature selection frameworks used (GA and SFS) and the six classifiers analyzed (LDA, SVM, NaiveBayes, C-MANTEC, kNN and MLP) for each cancer microarray dataset. The results correspond to the best simulation for each dataset, showing the accuracy for method in the format of mean ± standard deviation and the number of selected genes.