Table 7

Comparison of network reconstructions with random benchmarks.

Network

Hamm. Dist.

R1

R0

<a onClick="popup('http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1','MathML',630,470);return false;" target="_blank" href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1">View MathML</a>

Random

<a onClick="popup('http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1','MathML',630,470);return false;" target="_blank" href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1">View MathML</a>


Cortex/Comm. 1

Features reconstr.

1486

0.793

0.831

0.46

0.810

Cortex/Comm. 1

Distance reconstr.

711

0.664

0.792

0.46

0.725

Cortex/Comm. 1

Mixed feats. reconstr.

1486

0.793

0.831

0.46

0.810

Cortex/Comm. 2

Features reconstr.

898

0.641

0.921

0.50

0.750

Cortex/Comm. 2

Distance reconstr.

764

0.513

0.807

0.50

0.643

Cortex/Comm. 2

Mixed feats. reconstr.

520

0.954

0.628

0.50

0.775


Overview of measurements comparing the original and reconstructed networks: ratio of overall matches, percentage of correct zeros, percentage of correct ones, and geometrical averages between the two latter percentages expected for random comparisons and obtained from the considered experiments. It is apparent that the topological and spatial reconstructions of the two cortical communities have quality substantially superior to the random reference.

Costa et al. BMC Systems Biology 2007 1:16   doi:10.1186/1752-0509-1-16

Open Data