Table 9 Comparison with other methods
Method | Data set | Q (%) | MCC | P (%) | R (%) | FPR (%) | r | RMSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cheng et al. [3] | 1,496 (1,539) | 84.1 | 0.59 | 69.3 | 71.1 | 10.3 | (0.75) | (1.10) |
Our method | Â | 86.0 | 0.65 | 77.0 | 72.3 | 8.6 | (0.83) | (0.93) |
Huang et al. [4] | 1,859 | 82.1 | - | - | 75.3 | 15.5 | 0.70 | - |
Our method | Â | 83.4 | 0.61 | 75.2 | 70.3 | 10.6 | 0.80 | 1.08 |
Ozen et al. [5] | 1,122 | 83.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Our method | Â | 84.6 | 0.65 | 77.6 | 75.1 | 10.7 | 0.82 | 0.97 |