Table 2.
Performance comparison of CAMBa to other methods using default parameters on Rice and Wheat
| Rice | Wheat | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Pred | Conf | FP | FN | Sens | Spec | Pred | Conf | FP | FN | Sens | Spec |
| CAMBa | 75 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 90.67 | 99.96 | 107 | 36 | 8 | 8 | 92.52 | 99.82 |
| Outlier | 75 | 8 | 20 | 20 | 73.33 | 99.89 | 107 | 36 | 8 | 8 | 92.52 | 99.82 |
| CRISP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 121 | 32 | 33 | 19 | 82.24 | 99.28 |
| VarScan | 3 | 0 | 3 | 75 | 0.00 | 99.98 | 30 | 10 | 3 | 80 | 25.23 | 99.93 |
| ComSeq | 9599 | 10 | 9531 | 7 | 90.67 | 47.15 | 154 | 36 | 55 | 8 | 92.52 | 98.79 |
| Poisson | 6889 | 8 | 6834 | 20 | 73.33 | 62.10 | 218 | 35 | 122 | 11 | 89.72 | 97.33 |
Performance comparison of CAMBa to other methods using default parameters, on the Rice (left) and the Wheat data sets. The column abbreviations are as in Table 1. All methods are evaluated on their ability to predict the carrier of each candidate mutation, except CRISP, which cannot make such predictions.