Table 4 Task 2.1 results. The table shows the results of task 2.1 for each participant.
Participant | Run | Evaluated results | Perfect prediction | Correct protein/general GO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ehrler et al. [20] | 1 | 1048 | 268 (25.57%) | 74 (7.06%) |
Krymolowski et al. [26] | 1 | 1053 | 166 (15.76%) | 77 (7.31%) |
Krymolowski et al. [26] | 2 | 1050 | 166 (15.81%) | 90 (8.57%) |
Krymolowski et al. [26] | 3 | 1050 | 154 (14.67%) | 86 (8.19%) |
Verspoor et al. [21] | 1 | 1057 | 272 (25.73%) | 154 (14.57%) |
Verspoor et al. [21] | 2 | 1864 | 43 (2.31%) | 40 (2.15%) |
Verspoor et al. [21] | 3 | 1703 | 66 (3.88%) | 40 (2.35%) |
Chiang I et al. [25] | 1 | 251 | 125 (49.80%) | 13 (5.18%) |
Chiang I et al. [25] | 2 | 70 | 33 (47.14%) | 5 (7.14%) |
Chiang I et al. [25] | 3 | 89 | 41 (46.07%) | 7 (7.87%) |
Chiang II et al. [25] | 1 | 45 | 36 (80.00%) | 3 (6.67%) |
Chiang II et al. [25] | 2 | 59 | 45 (76.27%) | 2 (3.39%) |
Chiang II et al. [25] | 3 | 64 | 50 (78.12%) | 4 (6.25%) |
Krallinger et al. [22] | 1 | 1050 | 303 (28.86%) | 69 (6.57%) |
Rice et al. [23] | 1 | 524 | 59 (11.26%) | 28 (5.34%) |
Rice et al. [23] | 2 | 998 | 125 (12.53%) | 69 (6.91%) |
Ray et al. [24] | 1 | 413 | 83 (20.10%) | 19 (4.60%) |
Ray et al. [24] | 2 | 458 | 7 (1.53%) | 0 (0.00%) |
Couto et al. [19] | 1 | 1048 | 301 (28.72%) | 57 (5.44%) |
Couto et al. [19] | 2 | 1048 | 280 (26.72) | 60 (5.73%) |
Couto et al. [19] | 3 | 1050 | 239 (22.76) | 59 (5.62%) |