Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of between Clus-HMC-Ens and the MouseFunc systems

From: Predicting gene function using hierarchical multi-label decision tree ensembles

Subset

CLUS-HMC-ENS

BSVM+

KLR

CSVM

GENE FAS

GENE MANIA

KIM

Funckenstein

BP_3-10

0.695

0.808

0.581

0.588

0.715

0.873

0.813

0.790

BP_11-30

0.748

0.808

0.741

0.659

0.767

0.849

0.822

0.796

BP_31-100

0.831

0.874

0.846

0.778

0.780

0.872

0.851

0.880

BP_101-300

0.823

0.853

0.845

0.813

0.733

0.840

0.795

0.838

CC_3-10

0.748

0.845

0.571

0.618

0.782

0.899

0.865

0.837

CC_11-30

0.791

0.873

0.790

0.785

0.834

0.907

0.846

0.850

CC_31-100

0.863

0.896

0.850

0.851

0.783

0.887

0.863

0.849

CC_101-300

0.845

0.873

0.851

0.821

0.750

0.842

0.808

0.867

MF_3-10

0.818

0.887

0.630

0.681

0.850

0.951

0.880

0.879

MF_11-30

0.842

0.903

0.861

0.836

0.865

0.936

0.884

0.909

MF_31-100

0.838

0.888

0.892

0.881

0.843

0.887

0.884

0.903

MF_101-300

0.874

0.904

0.894

0.884

0.843

0.909

0.844

0.918

  1. For each of the 12 subsets, the of CLUS-HMC-ENS is compared with the MouseFunc systems. A win () means that the MouseFunc system outperforms CLUS-HMC-ENS, a loss () means that it is outperformed by CLUS-HMC-ENS.