Sample A: Cover Page of Thesis, Project, or Dissertation Proposal
Sample A: Cover Page of Thesis, Project, or Dissertation Proposal
Sample A: Cover Page of Thesis, Project, or Dissertation Proposal
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Table 2.3: ProbeSet behavi<strong>or</strong> predictions. Confusion matrices f<strong>or</strong> classification <strong>of</strong> the inf<strong>or</strong>mative nature,<br />
comparing the classification <strong>of</strong> the predicted Lu probes and the observed BaFL cleansed Lu probes. TP is<br />
true positive, FP is false positive. The first 3 confusion matrices show the result when t-test classification<br />
is done at the probe level, while the bottom matrix is the equivalent comparison perf<strong>or</strong>med at the ProbeSet<br />
level. ProbeSet level analysis was done f<strong>or</strong> the predictive ProbeSets that are present in the cleansed Lu<br />
output (True positive prediction rate f<strong>or</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> a ProbeSets was 91.64% and the False positive<br />
err<strong>or</strong> rate was 13.24% as shown in Table 2.2).<br />
Level Confusion Matrix Class TP Rate FP Rate<br />
Probe Level<br />
Probe Level<br />
Probe Level<br />
3904 51 Noise<br />
77 564 not Noise<br />
540 79 Signal<br />
55 3922 not Signal<br />
18 4 DE<br />
2 4572 not DE<br />
ProbeSet Level 4444 13<br />
Signal<br />
DE<br />
98.71% 12.01%<br />
87.24% 1.38%<br />
81.82% 0.04%<br />
99.71% 6.47%<br />
While the characteristic call may have a high level <strong>of</strong> sensitivity and specificity, as presented<br />
above, the influence <strong>of</strong> a probe within a ProbeSet might either change the overall ProbeSet mean<br />
expression and even the direction <strong>of</strong> relative expression (µ1 > µ2 ! µ1 < µ2), <strong>or</strong> make so min<strong>or</strong><br />
a contribution as to be irrelevant. To test the imp<strong>or</strong>tance <strong>of</strong> such contributions, ProbeSet averages<br />
were calculated f<strong>or</strong> the probes predicted to be present in the Lu data, as derived from the BaFL<br />
cleansed Bhattacharjee Stage I adenocarcinoma-squamous model. Similarly, the BaFL cleansed<br />
ProbeSets were aggregated f<strong>or</strong> the BaFL cleansed Lu dataset. Figure 2.7 shows the results <strong>of</strong> an<br />
analysis, f<strong>or</strong> the common ProbeSets, using fold change to summarize disease to n<strong>or</strong>mal<br />
relationships, f<strong>or</strong> the two sample types in the Lu dataset. The data generated by the BAFL<br />
method demonstrates that the aggregation <strong>of</strong> the predictive individual probes closely mirr<strong>or</strong>s that<br />
<strong>of</strong> the BaFL cleansed probes f<strong>or</strong> the Lu dataset. The consistency lies not only in selecting good<br />
ProbeSets, but in handling the constituent probes c<strong>or</strong>rectly as well.<br />
57