Table 1 Performance of remedying procedures for all possible situations of phs000634.

From: Precise diagnosis of three top cancers using dbGaP data

Instance no.

True status

\({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\)

\({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\)

Conclusion

Instance no.

True status

\({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\)

\({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\)

Conclusion

(A)

(B)

118

Case

0.5132

0.6442

Improved

29

Case

0.4896

0.6215

Corrected

811

Case

0.5005

0.9954

Improved

39

Case

0.5495

0.9332

Improved

1024

Case

0.5225

0.9034

Improved

375

Case

0.5290

0.9450

Improved

1077

Control

0.4590

0.2712

Improved

435

Control

0.4726

0.0838

Improved

1126

Case

0.5140

0.9823

Improved

1026

Case

0.5352

0.8606

Improved

1128

Control

0.4987

0.0508

Improved

1086

Control

0.4549

0.1960

Improved

1365

Control

0.4525

0.3326

Improved

1495

Case

0.5015

0.7915

Improved

1482

Case

0.5277

0.6845

Improved

1597

Case

0.5398

0.8696

Improved

1655

Control

0.4545

0.0392

Improved

     
  1. (A) Results of using \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\) to remedy \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\). (B) Results of using \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\) to remedy \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\). The 3rd and 3th columns are posterior probabilities of diagnosing instances as “positive” using the main model (i.e., \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\) for (A) and \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\) for (B)) and the remedying model (i.e., \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\) for (A) and \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\) for (B)). Only an instance with posterior probability of being diagnosed as “positive” equaling from 0.45 to 0.55 is considered by remedying procedures. Taking the 29th instance (case) for example, \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\) accepts “negative” because the posterior probability of diagnosing it as “positive” equals 0.4896 \((<0.5)\); \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\) corrects the diagnosis with posterior probability of making correct diagnosis, 0.6215 \((>0.5)\). In this situation, we label the conclusion as corrected. For the 1655th instance (control), \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(2)}}}\) remedies \({\texttt {NBC}_{\texttt {634}}^{\texttt {(1)}}}\) by improving the posterior probability of making correct diagnosis from 0.5455 \((=1-0.4545>0.5)\) to 0.9608 \((=1-0.0392>0.5455)\). In this situation, the conclusion is labeled as improved. Other results can be explained similarly.