|
Task 2.1 results. The table shows the results of task 2.1 for each participant. |
||||
| Participant |
Run |
Evaluated results |
Perfect prediction |
Correct protein/general GO |
|
|
||||
| Ehrler et al. [20] |
1 |
1048 |
268 (25.57%) |
74 (7.06%) |
| Krymolowski et al. [26] |
1 |
1053 |
166 (15.76%) |
77 (7.31%) |
| Krymolowski et al. [26] |
2 |
1050 |
166 (15.81%) |
90 (8.57%) |
| Krymolowski et al. [26] |
3 |
1050 |
154 (14.67%) |
86 (8.19%) |
| Verspoor et al. [21] |
1 |
1057 |
272 (25.73%) |
154 (14.57%) |
| Verspoor et al. [21] |
2 |
1864 |
43 (2.31%) |
40 (2.15%) |
| Verspoor et al. [21] |
3 |
1703 |
66 (3.88%) |
40 (2.35%) |
| Chiang I et al. [25] |
1 |
251 |
125 (49.80%) |
13 (5.18%) |
| Chiang I et al. [25] |
2 |
70 |
33 (47.14%) |
5 (7.14%) |
| Chiang I et al. [25] |
3 |
89 |
41 (46.07%) |
7 (7.87%) |
| Chiang II et al. [25] |
1 |
45 |
36 (80.00%) |
3 (6.67%) |
| Chiang II et al. [25] |
2 |
59 |
45 (76.27%) |
2 (3.39%) |
| Chiang II et al. [25] |
3 |
64 |
50 (78.12%) |
4 (6.25%) |
| Krallinger et al. [22] |
1 |
1050 |
303 (28.86%) |
69 (6.57%) |
| Rice et al. [23] |
1 |
524 |
59 (11.26%) |
28 (5.34%) |
| Rice et al. [23] |
2 |
998 |
125 (12.53%) |
69 (6.91%) |
| Ray et al. [24] |
1 |
413 |
83 (20.10%) |
19 (4.60%) |
| Ray et al. [24] |
2 |
458 |
7 (1.53%) |
0 (0.00%) |
| Couto et al. [19] |
1 |
1048 |
301 (28.72%) |
57 (5.44%) |
| Couto et al. [19] |
2 |
1048 |
280 (26.72) |
60 (5.73%) |
| Couto et al. [19] |
3 |
1050 |
239 (22.76) |
59 (5.62%) |
Blaschke et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2005 6(Suppl 1):S16 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-6-S1-S16 |
||||