Skip to main content
. 2008 Jul 1;24(13):i105–i113. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn147

Table 1.

Comparison of the haplotype reconstruction rate of the algorithms with es and eg varying

Haplotype reconstruction rate (%)
eg es=3% es=5% es=7%
(%) WMLF/GS MEC/GI WMLF WMLF/GS MEC/GI WMLF WMLF/GS MEC/GI WMLF
0 94.6 (94.7) 90.5 (90.7) 80.5 (80.4) 94.2 (94.0) 89.6 (90.5) 79.8 (80.1) 93.6 (93.7) 90.1 (90.3) 80.1 (79.6)
3 94.3 (93.8) 90.2 (89.5) 81.1 (80.3) 92.1 (93.7) 88.3 (89.3) 80.2 (80.0) 92.1 (93.1) 88.6 (88.9) 79.0 (79.5)
5 95.0 (93.8) 89.6 (88.7) 80.0 (80.5) 93.5 (93.2) 89.7 (88.5) 79.3 (80.0) 91.6 (92.6) 87.5 (87.4) 80.0 (79.7)
7 93.9 (93.3) 87.5 (88.7) 79.8 (80.9) 92.9 (93.2) 88.4 (87.9) 79.9 (80.2) 92.8 (93.0) 87.4 (87.3) 80.1 (80.0)

The data not enclosed in brackets are the experiment results on the real haplotype data, and the date enclosed in brackets are the experiment results on the simulated haplotype data. All experiments are repeated 100 times with n=100 and m=200.