Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In predictive analytics, a table of confusion (sometimes also called a confusion matrix) is a table with two rows and two columns that reports the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives. This allows more detailed analysis than simply observing the proportion of correct classifications (accuracy).
Accuracy is also used as a statistical measure of how well a binary classification test correctly identifies or excludes a condition. That is, the accuracy is the proportion of correct predictions (both true positives and true negatives) among the total number of cases examined. [10]
These can be arranged into a 2×2 contingency table (confusion matrix), conventionally with the test result on the vertical axis and the actual condition on the horizontal axis. These numbers can then be totaled, yielding both a grand total and marginal totals. Totaling the entire table, the number of true positives, false negatives, true ...
In a classification task, the precision for a class is the number of true positives (i.e. the number of items correctly labelled as belonging to the positive class) divided by the total number of elements labelled as belonging to the positive class (i.e. the sum of true positives and false positives, which are items incorrectly labelled as belonging to the class).
The positive predictive value (PPV), or precision, is defined as = + = where a "true positive" is the event that the test makes a positive prediction, and the subject has a positive result under the gold standard, and a "false positive" is the event that the test makes a positive prediction, and the subject has a negative result under the gold standard.
Even though the accuracy is 10 + 999000 / 1000000 ≈ 99.9%, 990 out of the 1000 positive predictions are incorrect. The precision of 10 / 10 + 990 = 1% reveals its poor performance. As the classes are so unbalanced, a better metric is the F1 score = 2 × 0.01 × 1 / 0.01 + 1 ≈ 2% (the recall being 10 + 0 / 10 ...
The resulting number gives an estimate on how many positive examples the feature could correctly identify within the data, with higher numbers meaning that the feature could correctly classify more positive samples. Below is an example of how to use the metric when the full confusion matrix of a certain feature is given: Feature A Confusion Matrix
The log diagnostic odds ratio is sometimes used in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies due to its simplicity (being approximately normally distributed). [ 4 ] Traditional meta-analytic techniques such as inverse-variance weighting can be used to combine log diagnostic odds ratios computed from a number of data sources to produce ...