Table 2 |
|||
|
Comparison of the four automated bioassay neighboring methods by using the depositor-defined (human-curated) assay neighbors as a benchmark. |
|||
|
Neighboring method |
Recall |
Precision |
F1 score |
|
Number of common pairs/Number of depositor-specified pairs |
Number of common pairs/Number of assay pairs by the method |
Harmonic mean(recall, precision) |
|
|
|
|||
|
1. Activity based |
41% [3694/8802] |
0.5% [4100/671799] |
0.99% |
|
|
|||
|
2. Target similarity based |
46% [4100/8802] |
0.6% [4100/66497] |
1.18% |
|
|
|||
|
3. Biosystems based |
34% [3008/8802] |
0.2% [3008/160356] |
0.39% |
|
|
|||
|
4. Text-mining based |
86% [7530/8802] |
15.0% [7530/50148] |
25.50% |
|
|
|||
|
Han et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2010 11:549 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-549 |
|||