Table 5 |
|||
|
Accuracy of machine learning predictions.a |
|||
|
J48 |
Naïve Bayes |
SMO |
|
|
|
|||
|
a) Sequences folding to the top 10% of designable structures vs. sequences folding to the bottom 10% of designable structures for both shapes |
69.5% correct |
65.0% correct |
65.6% correct |
|
AUC 0.73 |
AUC 0.69 |
AUC 0.67 |
|
|
Sens: 0.67 |
Sens: 0.66 |
Sens: 0.71 |
|
|
Spec: 0.71 |
Spec: 0.65 |
Spec: 0.64 |
|
|
|
|||
|
b) Sequences folding to the top 10% of designable structures of hexagonal shape vs. sequences folding to the bottom 10% of designable structures in the triangular shape |
98.1% correct |
84.9% correct |
87.0% correct |
|
AUC 0.99 |
AUC 0.92 |
AUC 0.87 |
|
|
Sens: 0.98 |
Sens: 0.82 |
Sens: 0.84 |
|
|
Spec: 0.98 |
Spec: 0.90 |
Spec: 0.92 |
|
|
|
|||
|
c) Sequences folding to the top 10% of designable structures of triangular shape vs. sequences folding to the bottom 10% of designable structures in the hexagonal shape |
98.0% correct |
65.8% correct |
64.3% correct |
|
AUC 0.99 |
AUC 0.70 |
AUC 0.63 |
|
|
Sens: 0.98 |
Sens: 0.64 |
Sens: 0.75 |
|
|
Spec: 0.98 |
Spec: 0.72 |
Spec: 0.66 |
|
|
|
|||
|
a For classifying a)sequences folding to highly-designable conformations for the hexagonal and triangular shapes against sequences folding to the least designable conformations for these two shapes; b)sequences folding to the most designable conformations of the hexagonal shape against sequences folding to the least designable conformations of the triangular shape and c)sequences folding to the most designable conformations of the triangular shape against sequences folding to the least designable conformations of the hexagonal shape. Prediction accuracy and area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity (Sens) and specificity (Spec) for each method are given. |
|||
|
Peto et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2008 9:487 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-487 |
|||