Table 3 Model performance comparison on the five benchmark datasets
Model | BC4CHEMD | BC2GM | BC5CDR-Disease | BC5CDR-Chem | NCBI-Disease | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\(\textbf{P}\) | \(\textbf{R}\) | \(\textbf{F1}\) | \(\textbf{P}\) | \(\textbf{R}\) | \(\textbf{F1}\) | \(\textbf{P}\) | \(\textbf{R}\) | \(\textbf{F1}\) | \(\textbf{P}\) | \(\textbf{R}\) | \(\textbf{F1}\) | \(\textbf{P}\) | \(\textbf{R}\) | \(\textbf{F1}\) | |
Habibi et al. [16] | – | – | – | 81.57 | 79.48 | 80.51 | – | – | – | 87.60 | 86.25 | 86.92 | 86.11 | 85.49 | 85.80 |
Luo et al. [17] | – | – | – | – | – | – | 89.61 | 83.09 | 86.23 | – | – | – | 90.72 | 74.89 | 82.05 |
Sachan et al. [18] | – | – | – | 81.81 | 81.57 | 81.69 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 86.41 | 88.31 | 87.34 |
Devlin et al. [19] | – | – | – | 81.17 | 82.42 | 81.79 | – | – | – | 90.94 | 91.38 | 91.16 | 84.12 | 87.19 | 85.63 |
Lee et al. [20] | 92.80 | 91.92 | 92.36 | 84.32 | 85.12 | 84.72 | 86.47 | 89.84 | 87.15 | 93.68 | 93.26 | 93.47 | 88.22 | 91.25 | 89.71 |
Yu et al. [21] | – | – | – | – | – | 84.52 | – | – | 85.62 | – | – | 93.33 | – | – | 87.82 |
Tian et al. [10] | – | – | – | – | – | 84.92 | – | – | – | – | – | 94.00 | – | – | 90.08 |
Wang et al. [22] | 90.78 | 87.53 | 89.37 | 82.10 | 79.42 | 80.74 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 85.86 | 86.42 | 86.14 |
Yoon et al. [23] | – | – | – | 80.49 | 78.99 | 79.93 | – | – | – | 94.26 | 92.38 | 93.31 | 85.48 | 87.27 | 86.36 |
Khan et al. [24] | – | – | – | 82.10 | 84.04 | 83.01 | – | – | – | 88.46 | 90.52 | 89.48 | 86.73 | 89.70 | 88.19 |
Chai et al. [25] | – | – | 92.42* | – | – | 82.92 | – | – | 87.28* | – | – | 93.83 | – | – | 89.25 |
Tong et al. [26] | – | – | – | 84.42 | 85.14 | 84.78* | – | – | – | 93.29 | 94.69 | 93.98* | 88.90 | 90.04 | 89.91* |
PAMDFGA | 91.74 | 93.37 | 92.55 | 85.43 | 85.47 | 85.45 | 87.11 | 87.95 | 87.53 | 93.66 | 94.67 | 94.16 | 89.76 | 91.35 | 90.55 |