Skip to main content
. 2016 Mar 16;8:15. doi: 10.1186/s13321-016-0128-4

Table 1.

Comparison between methods over six different datasets based on LOOCV for each known DTI

Method AUC (%) ‘Top 1’ (%) ‘Top 2’ (%) ‘Top 5’ (%)
Enzyme
 NRWRH 92.89 1.06 8.07 12.82
 HGBI 91.60 2.36 8.1 12.41
 DT-Hybrid 89.80 0 7.55 10.95
 DASPfind 92.91 52.08 55.29 62.74
Ion channels
 NRWRH 91.56 1.69 2.91 10.16
 HGBI 88.93 1.42 2.24 6.1
 DT-Hybrid 92 0 1.42 14.3
 DASPfind 90.68 32.72 35.09 46.54
GPCR
 NRWRH 84.93 2.52 11.50 40.94
 HGBI 91.29 5.83 12.28 31.5
 DT-Hybrid 83.87 0 6.93 31.65
 DASPfind 88.10 46.61 51.18 64.4
Nuclear receptors
 NRWRH 73.9 7.78 32.22 52.22
 HGBI 87.57 15.56 42.22 57.78
 DT-Hybrid 69.95 0 14.44 22.22
 DASPfind 85.27 53.3 65.5 77.7
HGBI_Dataset
 NRWRH 86.19 0 5.9 20.47
 HGBI 89.07 0 5.17 16.19
 DT-Hybrid 86.75 0 5.74 21.04
 DASPfind 89.61 28.30 33.32 42.51
DrugBank_Approved
 NRWRH 89.5 1.04 5.65 18.63
 HGBI 80.10 2.11 4.36 11.32
 DT-Hybrid 84.44 0.34 5.88 22.69
 DASPfind 88.84 27.82 32.89 48.56