Table 4.
Statistics and performance comparison between InterPro2GO and DAAC
| InterPro2GO |
DAAC | |
|---|---|---|
| Total no. of mappings | 6382 | 25626 |
| No. of unique entries | 2927 | 8248 |
| No. of unique GO terms | 1411 | 778 |
| No. of GO terms predicted by each system | 1188 | 555 |
| (No. of shared terms: 223) | ||
| No. of mapped GO term relations with the other system | 760 in relation651 independent | 625 in relation153 independent |
| % specificity of the mapped GO terms compared to other system | 19% | 75% |
| (6% the same term) | ||
| Performance comparison | ||
| F-score | 0.675 | 0.874 |
| Recall | 0.615 | 0.843 |
| Precision | 0.909 | 0.919 |
| FPR (fall-out) | 1.98 × 10−5 | 4.57 × 10−4 |