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 2 Diagnostic Performance Comparison of Simple versus Integrated Machine Learning Models

From: Stacking classifiers based on integrated machine learning model: fusion of CT radiomics and clinical biomarkers to predict lymph node metastasis in locally advanced gastric cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Model

Accuracy

AUC

F1 Score

Precision

Recall

NPV

PPV

RF

0.833

0.848

0.837

0.837

0.837

0.829

0.837

XGBoost

0.786

0.842

0.78

0.821

0.744

0.711

0.769

LightGBM

0.714

0.85

0.7

0.757

0.651

0.681

0.757

GBDT

0.714

0.808

0.733

0.702

0.767

0.73

0.702

AdaBoost

0.762

0.802

0.756

0.795

0.721

0.733

0.795

CatBoost

0.786

0.845

0.786

0.805

0.767

0.767

0.805

Hard voting

0.762

0.79

0.761

0.768

0.762

0.717

0.789

Soft voting

0.786

0.85

0.786

0.786

0.786

0.78

0.791

Stacking Classifier

0.786

0.859

0.786

0.805

0.767

0.786

0.81

  1. GBDT gradient boosting decision tree; AdaBoost adaptive boosting: XGBoost extreme gradient boosting; LightGBM light gradient boosting machine; CatBoost categorical boosting: RF random forest; AUC area under the curve; NPV negative predictive value; PPV positive predictive value