Table 1

Performance comparison between WILP and ILP

sd

Total Predictions

True Positives

Sensitivity(%)

Fold Change


1

12663 (12663)

382 (375)

50.53 (49.60)

1.21 (1.19)

0.9

10592 (10592)

361 (351)

47.75 (46.43)

1.37 (1.33)

0.8

8521 (8521)

341 (342)

45.11 (45.24)

1.61 (1.61)

0.7

6450 (7102)

306 (306)

40.48 (40.48)

1.91 (1.73)

0.6

4379 (5162)

276 (223)

36.51 (29.50)

2.53 (1.74)

0.5

2648 (3091)

190 (176)

25.13 (23.28)

2.88 (2.29)

0.4

1613 (1620)

145 (143)

19.18 (18.92)

3.61 (3.55)

0.3

875 (779)

104 (89)

13.76 (11.77)

4.78 (4.59)

0.2

430 (279)

69 (37)

9.13 (4.89)

6.45 (5.33)

0.1

131 (63)

29 (16)

3.84 (2.12)

8.90 (10.21)


Comparison of WILP and ILP in terms of the number of the predicted DDIs confirmed by the golden data set. Predicted DDIs verified according to the golden data set are denoted as true positives. 'Sensitivity' and 'Fold Change' are defined in the main text. Numbers marked in red means that WILP outperforms ILP

Chen et al. BMC Systems Biology 2012 6(Suppl 1):S7   doi:10.1186/1752-0509-6-S1-S7

Open Data