| Literature DB >> 27642365 |
Jiang Wu1, Yanju Ji1, Ling Zhao2, Mengying Ji1, Zhuang Ye2, Suyi Li1.
Abstract
Background. Surfaced-enhanced laser desorption-ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (SELDI-TOF-MS) technology plays an important role in the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. However, the raw MS data is highly dimensional and redundant. Therefore, it is necessary to study rapid and accurate detection methods from the massive MS data. Methods. The clinical data set used in the experiments for early cancer detection consisted of 216 SELDI-TOF-MS samples. An MS analysis method based on probabilistic principal components analysis (PPCA) and support vector machine (SVM) was proposed and applied to the ovarian cancer early classification in the data set. Additionally, by the same data set, we also established a traditional PCA-SVM model. Finally we compared the two models in detection accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity. Results. Using independent training and testing experiments 10 times to evaluate the ovarian cancer detection models, the average prediction accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the PCA-SVM model were 83.34%, 82.70%, and 83.88%, respectively. In contrast, those of the PPCA-SVM model were 90.80%, 92.98%, and 88.97%, respectively. Conclusions. The PPCA-SVM model had better detection performance. And the model combined with the SELDI-TOF-MS technology had a prospect in early clinical detection and diagnosis of ovarian cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27642365 PMCID: PMC5011755 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6169249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Comparison of SELDI-TOF-MS of serum from an unaffected individual (a) and from an ovarian cancer patient (b) and the corresponding preprocessing result of the unaffected individual (c) and that of the ovarian cancer patient (d).
Comparison of the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the PCA-SVM and of the PPCA-SVM model.
| PCA-SVM prediction (%) | PPCA-SVM prediction (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
| 1 | 80.30 | 81.81 | 79.54 | 87.87 | 87.50 | 88.09 |
| 2 | 86.36 | 85.71 | 86.84 | 89.39 | 88.88 | 89.74 |
| 3 | 81.81 | 75.00 | 85.71 | 86.36 | 93.33 | 80.55 |
| 4 | 83.33 | 92.30 | 77.50 | 90.90 | 90.62 | 91.17 |
| 5 | 78.78 | 75.86 | 81.08 | 89.39 | 92.59 | 87.18 |
| 6 | 84.84 | 78.12 | 91.17 | 93.93 | 96.55 | 91.89 |
| 7 | 86.36 | 87.50 | 85.71 | 89.39 | 96.00 | 85.36 |
| 8 | 86.36 | 88.00 | 85.36 | 92.42 | 88.88 | 94.87 |
| 9 | 83.33 | 86.66 | 80.55 | 92.42 | 95.45 | 90.90 |
| 10 | 81.81 | 76.00 | 85.36 | 93.93 | 100 | 90.00 |
|
| ||||||
| Average | 83.34 | 82.70 | 83.88 | 90.80 | 92.98 | 88.97 |
Figure 2ROC graphic of PCA-SVM method (a) and ROC graphic of PPCA-SVM method (b).