Table 6

Comparison of BioCreAtIvE test set manual annotations with electronic GO annotation predictions.

InterPro2GO

SPKW2GO

EC2GO


Total IEA annotations

635

385

27

Exact term

151 (0.24)

62 (0.16)

18(0.67)

Correct

Same lineage > granularity

24 (0.04)

10 (0.03)

3 (0.11)

Potentially Incorrect/Correct

Same lineage < granularity

273 (0.43)

170 (0.44)

1 (0.04)

Correct

Total same lineage

297 (0.47)

180 (0.47)

4 (0.15)

Potentially Incorrect/Correct

New lineage

187 (0.29)

143 (0.37)

5 (0.19)

Potentially Incorrect/Correct

Total potential incorrect

211 (0.33)

153 (0.40)

8 (0.30)

Total minimal correct

424 (0.67)

232 (0.60)

19 (0.70)

Precision

0.67–1.00

0.60–1.00

0.70–1.00


Where the GO evidence code IEA is 'Inferred from Electronic Annotation' [27]. 'Same lineage > granularity' means where the electronic mapping (InterPro2GO, EC2GO or SPKW2GO) predicted a GO term that was in the same lineage/branch as the manually curated GO term but represented a more granular/parent term. 'Total potential incorrect' annotations = 'Same lineage >granularity' + 'New lineage'. 'Total minimal correct' annotations = 'Exact term' + 'Same lineage < granularity'. Percentage calculations are represented in parentheses.

Camon et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2005 6(Suppl 1):S17   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-6-S1-S17

Open Data