Table 2 Paired comparison results between automated annotation services
From: A semi-automated genome annotation comparison and integration scheme
| Â | IGS vs IMG | IGS vs JCVI | IGS vs RAST | IMG vs JCVI | IMG vs RAST | JCVI vs RAST |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | 62% | 51% | 39% | 46% | 40% | 32% |
One HP another non-HP | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 1% |
Annotation and database term | 23% | 20% | 11% | 27% | 14% | 30% |
Gene symbol entry | 1% | 2% | 5% | 1% | 4% | 5% |
Pfam entry | 3% | 7% | 11% | 6% | 10% | 8% |
Orthologue | 1% | 2% | 7% | 3% | 7% | 6% |
Vector space model | 1% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 2% |
Matching | 1% | 3% | 6% | 1% | 4% | 1% |
Overall result | 93% | 88% | 83% | 87% | 83% | 85% |