| Â | RB1 | RB10 | RMSDdecoy | Zdecoy | CCdecoy | FEdecoy (%) | logPB1 | logPB10 |
|---|
LoCo
| 154.8 | 5.6 | 3.51 | 0.938 | 0.505 | 31.4 | -0.864 | -1.640 |
OMEGAS ONLY
| 171.1 | 47.9 | 6.46 | 0.100 | 0.166 | 9.1 | -0.361 | -1.226 |
DFMAC WITH OMEGAS
| 108.9 | 13.8 | 3.64 | 1.024 | 0.533 | 31.6 | -0.825 | -1.586 |
DFMAC WITHOUT OMEGAS
| 106.1 | 12.6 | 3.61 | 1.021 | 0.533 | 32.1 | -0.830 | -1.600 |
- Comparison of decoy discrimination performance comparison among LoCo, our ω-only function and DFMAC, both with and without its ω component, is shown. All reported measures are averages over the 77 decoy sets in the final testing group. Lower scores are better for RB1, RB10, RMSDdecoy, log(PB1) and log(PB10). Higher scores are better for Zdecoy, CCdecoy and FEdecoy. Performance for our ω-only function is approximately the same as if its choices had been made at random. With the exception of CCdecoy (which stays the same) DFMAC performance improves across the board with the ω component removed. All metrics are defined in Performance measures at the end of Methods.
