Table 6 Comparison of the prediction performance between our proposed method and other state-of-the-art works on S.cerevisiae dataset

Our method

MMI+NMBAC

RF

95.01 ±0.46

92.67 ±0.50

97.16 ±0.55

90.10 ±0.92

You’s work [18]

MLD

RF

94.72 ±0.43

94.34 ±0.49

98.91 ±0.33

85.99 ±0.89

You’s work [30]

AC+CT+LD+MAC

E-ELM

87.00 ±0.29

86.15 ±0.43

87.59 ±0.32

77.36 ±0.44

You’s work [16]

MCD

SVM

91.36 ±0.36

90.67 ±0.69

91.94 ±0.62

84.21 ±0.59

Wong’s work [17]

PR-LPQ

Rotation Forest

93.92 ±0.36

91.10 ±0.31

96.45 ±0.45

88.56 ±0.63

Guo’s work [12]

ACC

SVM

89.33 ±2.67

89.93 ±3.68

88.87 ±6.16

N/A ^a

Guo’s work [12]

AC

SVM

87.36 ±1.38

87.30 ±4.68

87.82 ±4.33

N/A ^a

Zhou’s work [14]

LD

SVM

88.56 ±0.33

87.37 ±0.22

89.50 ±0.60

77.15 ±0.68

Yang’s work [15]

LD

KNN

86.15 ±1.17

81.03 ±1.74

90.24 ±1.34

N/A ^a