Table 2 Mutation retrieval task: Evaluation of precision (P), recall (R), and F-measure (F) on a benchmark set provided with the MutationFinder algorithm. Our MutationTagger performs in general comparably to MutationFinder. Although MutationFinder shows a slightly better overall performance, in the high recall mode MutationTagger extracts more mutations, which is desirable for the subsequent grounding and gene normalization improvement task.
From: Improved mutation tagging with gene identifiers applied to membrane protein stability prediction
| Â | MutationTagger precision | MutationTagger recall | MutationFinder | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | P | R | F | P | R | F | P | R | F |
Extracted mutation mentions | 0.970 | 0.807 | 0.881 | 0.914 | 0.856 | 0.883 | 0.984 | 0.819 | 0.894 |
Extracted mutations | 0.956 | 0.786 | 0.863 | 0.870 | 0.845 | 0.857 | 0.975 | 0.807 | 0.883 |
Document retrieval | 1.0 | 0.863 | 0.926 | 0.960 | 0.912 | 0.935 | 0.994 | 0.890 | 0.939 |