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.