Table 5

Task 2.2 results. The table shows the results of task 2.1 for each user.

Participant

Run

Evaluated results

Perfect prediction

Correct protein/general GO


Ehrler et al. [20]

1

634

78 (12.30%)

49 (7.73%)

Verspoor et al. [21]

1

110

1 (0.91%)

1 (0.91%)

Verspoor et al. [21]

2

344

19 (5.52%)

9 (2.62%)

Verspoor et al. [21]

3

229

2 (0.87%)

10 (4.37%)

Chiang I et al. [25]

1

26

9 (34.62%)

3 (11.54%)

Chiang I et al. [25]

2

41

14 (34.15%)

1 (2.44%)

Chiang I et al. [25]

3

41

14 (34.15%)

1 (2.44%)

Chiang II et al. [25]

1

113

35 (30.97%)

8 (7.08%)

Chiang II et al. [25]

2

85

24 (28.24%)

6 (7.06%)

Chiang II et al. [25]

3

113

37 (32.74%)

11 (9.73%)

Rice et al. [23]

1

479

3 (0.63%)

8 (1.67%)

Rice et al. [23]

2

460

16 (3.48%)

26 (5.65%)

Ray et al. [24]

1

244

52 (21.31%)

23 (9.43%)

Ray et al. [24]

2

38

1 (2.63%)

0 (0.00%)

Ray et al. [24]

3

90

1 (1.11%)

1 (1.11%)

Couto et al. [19]

1

617

20 (3.24%)

30 (4.86%)

Couto et al. [19]

2

661

38 (5.75)

26 (3.93%)

Couto et al. [19]

3

651

58 (8.91)

27 (4.15%)


Blaschke et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2005 6(Suppl 1):S16   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-6-S1-S16

Open Data