Table 2
|
| Results of Experiment 1 |
| Measure |
Ligand |
HEAD |
C4.5 |
 |
 |
t |
| Accuracy |
ETH |
0.71 ± 0.02 |
0.62 ± 0.02 |
0.08 |
0.0008 |
6.25 |
|
PIF |
0.86 ± 0.00 |
0.80 ± 0.02 |
0.06 |
0.0004 |
6.22 |
|
TCL |
0.65 ± 0.02 |
0.57 ± 0.02 |
0.08 |
0.0003 |
9.12 |
|
INH |
0.84 ± 0.01 |
0.79 ± 0.01 |
0.05 |
0.0001 |
8.28 |
|
JPM |
0.72 ± 0.02 |
0.65 ± 0.02 |
0.07 |
0.0004 |
7.62 |
| Tree Size |
ETH |
45.40 ± 9.88 |
539.80 ± 29.64 |
494.40 |
1174.04 |
31.48 |
|
PIF |
6.80 ± 0.63 |
283.00 ± 39.97 |
276.20 |
1603.95 |
15.00 |
|
TCL |
38.20 ± 8.17 |
588.00 ± 37.39 |
549.80 |
1549.73 |
30.40 |
|
INH |
12.20 ± 3.91 |
278.60 ± 24.80 |
266.40 |
568.71 |
24.31 |
|
JPM |
28.20 ± 6.48 |
483.80 ± 19.76 |
455.60 |
408.71 |
49.05 |
Table
2 presents the classification accuracy and tree size of HEAD-DT and C4.5 in the ETH, PIF, TCL, INH, and JPM data sets. HEAD-DT results were obtained by running a single decision-tree algorithm
tailored to the NADH data set.
Barros et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2012 13:310 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-13-310