From: Fuzzy association rules for biological data analysis: A case study on yeast
Variables | Number of rules before | Number of rules after | Rule reduction rate |
---|---|---|---|
Molecular Function & Structural variables | 38 | 20 | 47% |
Biological Process & Structural variables | 11 | 7 | 36% |
Cellular Component & Structural variables | 24 | 12 | 50% |
Protein abundance & Molecular Function | 34 | 19 | 44% |
Protein abundance & Biological Process | 37 | 21 | 43% |
Protein abundance & Cellular Component | 23 | 14 | 39% |
Responsiveness & Molecular Function | 45 | 23 | 49% |
Responsiveness & Biological Process | 28 | 19 | 32% |
Responsiveness & Cellular Component | 50 | 19 | 62% |
TATA box & Molecular Function | 53 | 26 | 51% |
TATA box & Biological Process | 17 | 15 | 12% |
TATA box & Cellular Component | 37 | 12 | 68% |
Cho et al. – EDA (grouping 1) | 24 | 23 | 4% |
Cho et al. – EDA (grouping 2) | 6 | 6 | 0% |
Cho et al. – G&S SHAVING (grouping 1) | 98 | 45 | 54% |
Cho et al. – G&S SHAVING (grouping 2) | 79 | 36 | 54% |
Gasch et al. – EDA (grouping 1) | 21 | 17 | 19% |
Gasch et al. – EDA (grouping 2) | 25 | 21 | 16% |
Gasch et al. – G&S SHAVING (grouping 1) | 95 | 56 | 41% |
Gasch et al. – G&S SHAVING (grouping 2) | 77 | 35 | 55% |