Skip to main content

Table 7 Comparison of performance as a function of the balancing method.

From: Improvement in the prediction of the translation initiation site through balancing methods, inclusion of acquired knowledge and addition of features to sequences of mRNA

Organism: Mus musculus
Balancing Ac Pr Se Sp Adj
Without balancing 97,96 (0,37) 98,50 (3,02) 51,39 (6,97) 99,97 (0,06) 75,68 (3,49)
Rand undersampling 93,70 (0,83) 38,95 (3,94) 91,06 (3,85) 93,81 (0,88) 92,44 (1,90)
M-Clus 94,54 (1,15) 43,05 (6,18) 91,55 (3,76) 94,68 (1,14) 93,22 (2,13)
SBC 92,23 (1,70) 34,12 (4,96) 89,63 (3,46) 92,34 (1,81) 90,98 (1,74)
Organism: Rattus norvegicus
Balancing Ac Pr Se Sp Adj
Without balancing 99,59 (0,08) 96,90 (6,21) 47,45 (11,21) 99,98 (0,03) 73,72 (5,60)
Rand undersampling 95,90 (2,07) 13,89 (4,57) 83,18 (10,75) 96,00 (2,36) 89,59 (4,89)
M-Clus 95,38 (1,09) 13,55 (3,65) 88,09 (9,82) 95,44 (1,14) 91,76 (4,61)
SBC 88,23 (6,09) 6,73 (2,57) 91,00 (11,35) 88,20 (6,20) 89,60 (4,09)
  1. These results were obtained using a window size of -10+30, the features ATG + STOP + GAG. The inclusion of acquired knowledge, InAKnow, was not used.