Table 5 The comparison of the performance of the HMPI and other methods mentioned above at identifying eukaryotic promoters
From: A successful hybrid deep learning model aiming at promoter identification
Organism | Results source | Sn (%) | Sp (%) | Mcc | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Human | This article | 85.84 | 94.72 | 0.8151 | HMPI |
82.13 | 90.60 | 0.7303 | ResNet | ||
83.75 | 86.84 | 0.6982 | GoogLeNet | ||
[32] | 85.19 | 81.91 | \(*\) | SD-MSAEs | |
[33] | 78.45 | \(*\) | 0.6413 | SCS | |
[20] | 79.67 | 78.90 | * | DCDE-MSVM | |
Plants | This article | 90.34 | 95.95 | 0.8684 | HMPI |
80.92 | 89.56 | 0.7086 | ResNet | ||
87.92 | 92.83 | 0.8089 | GoogLeNet | ||
[34] | 89 | 86 | * | PromoBot | |
[27] | 94 | 86 | 0.82 | TSSPlant |