Table 3 Performance comparison with existing methods on the benchmark test dataset
Method | Acc | AUROC | AUCPR | Kappa | Sen | Spe | MCC | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
iAMP-2L | 65.4% | – | – | 0.318 | 82.9% | 47.9% | 0.329 | Xiao et al. [25] |
iAMPpred | 70.7% | – | – | 0.415 | 80.8% | 60.6% | 0.424 | Meher et al. [26] |
AmPEP | 68.0% | 0.751 | 0.686 | 0.362 | 93.6% | 42.5% | 0.421 | Bhadra et al. [27] |
AMP Scanner DNN | 73.4% | 0.806 | 0.777 | 0.468 | 80.8% | 65.9% | 0.473 | Veltri et al. [28] |
RF-AmPEP30 | 77.1% | 0.854 | 0.868 | 0.543 | 77.6% | 76.6% | 0.542 | Yan et al. [32] |
Deep-AmPEP30 | 77.1% | 0.853 | 0.853 | 0.543 | 76.6% | 77.7% | 0.543 | Yan et al. [32] |
Co-AMPpred | 80.8% | 0.871 | 0.890 | 0.606 | 79.7% | 81.9% | 0.606 | This study |
Co-AMPpred70 | 78.6% | 0.861 | 0.860 | 0.553 | 80.9% | 74.5% | 0.554 | This study |
Co-AMPpred80 | 76.6% | 0.851 | 0.840 | 0.532 | 78.7% | 74.5% | 0.532 | This study |
Co-AMPpred90 | 70.2% | 0.843 | 0.860 | 0.404 | 89.4% | 51.1% | 0.438 | This study |