Table 4

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

Open Data