Table 7

Comparison of performance as a function of the balancing method.

Organism: Mus musculus


Balancing

Ac

Pr

Se

Sp

Adj


Without balancing

97,96 (0,37)

98,50 (3,02)

51,39 (6,97)

99,97 (0,06)

75,68 (3,49)

Rand undersampling

93,70 (0,83)

38,95 (3,94)

91,06 (3,85)

93,81 (0,88)

92,44 (1,90)

M-Clus

94,54 (1,15)

43,05 (6,18)

91,55 (3,76)

94,68 (1,14)

93,22 (2,13)

SBC

92,23 (1,70)

34,12 (4,96)

89,63 (3,46)

92,34 (1,81)

90,98 (1,74)


Organism: Rattus norvegicus


Balancing

Ac

Pr

Se

Sp

Adj


Without balancing

99,59 (0,08)

96,90 (6,21)

47,45 (11,21)

99,98 (0,03)

73,72 (5,60)

Rand undersampling

95,90 (2,07)

13,89 (4,57)

83,18 (10,75)

96,00 (2,36)

89,59 (4,89)

M-Clus

95,38 (1,09)

13,55 (3,65)

88,09 (9,82)

95,44 (1,14)

91,76 (4,61)

SBC

88,23 (6,09)

6,73 (2,57)

91,00 (11,35)

88,20 (6,20)

89,60 (4,09)


These results were obtained using a window size of -10+30, the features ATG + STOP + GAG. The inclusion of acquired knowledge, InAKnow, was not used.

Silva et al. BMC Genomics 2011 12(Suppl 4):S9   doi:10.1186/1471-2164-12-S4-S9

Open Data