Table 1

Results across all users for BioCreAtIvE Task 2.1.

User, Run

# results

"perfect"

"generally"


4, 1

1048

268 (25.57%)

74 (7.06%)

5, 1

1053

166 (15.76%)

77 (7.31%)

5, 2

1050

166 (15.81%)

90 (8.57%)

5, 3

1050

154 (14.67%)

86 (8.19%)

7, 1

1050

263 (25.05%)

150 (14.29%)

7, 2

1856

43 (2.32%)

40 (2.16%)

7, 3

1698

59 (3.47%)

27 (1.59%)

9, 1

251

125 (49.80%)

13 (5.18%)

9, 2

70

33 (47.14%)

5 (7.14%)

9, 3

89

41 (46.07%)

7 (7.87%)

10, 1

45

36 (80.00%)

3 (6.67%)

10, 2

59

45 (76.27%)

2 (3.39%)

10, 3

64

50 (78.12%)

4 (6.25%)

14, 1

1050

303 (28.86%)

69 (6.57%)

15, 1

524

59 (11.26%)

28 (5.34%)

15, 2

998

125 (12.53%)

69 (6.91%)

17, 1

412

0 (0.00%)

1 (0.24%)

17, 2

458

1 (0.22%)

0 (0.00%)

20, 1

1048

300 (28.63%)

57 (5.44%)

20, 2

1050

280 (26.72%)

60 (5.73%)

20, 3

1050

239 (22.76%)

59 (5.62%)


Evaluation results on the evidence text selected for Task 2.1. A "perfect" evaluation indicates that the evidence text refers to both the correct protein and the correct GO node. A "generally" evaluation indicates that it refers to the correct protein and that the reference to a GO node is somewhat too general. The Los Alamos team is user 7.

Verspoor et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2005 6(Suppl 1):S20   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-6-S1-S20

Open Data