Table 3.
Performance of the proposed combined methods on the 9 types of ligands over five-fold cross-validation and comparison with COACH
| Ligand | Method | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CU | TargetCom | 99.21 | 57.94 | 99.78 | 0.67 |
| COACH | 98.86 | 61.12 | 99.39 | 0.59 | |
| FE | TargetCom | 98.73 | 59.73 | 99.32 | 0.58 |
| COACH | 97.95 | 66.82 | 98.42 | 0.50 | |
| FE2 | TargetCom | 99.27 | 67.73 | 99.68 | 0.70 |
| COACH | 99.20 | 62.41 | 99.67 | 0.66 | |
| ZN | TargetCom | 98.99 | 56.18 | 99.50 | 0.56 |
| COACH | 98.65 | 57.38 | 99.14 | 0.50 | |
| SO4 | TargetCom | 97.72 | 15.11 | 99.48 | 0.23 |
| COACH | 97.21 | 19.15 | 98.87 | 0.21 | |
| PO4 | TargetCom | 97.99 | 32.03 | 99.26 | 0.37 |
| COACH | 97.52 | 35.33 | 98.72 | 0.34 | |
| ATP | TargetCom | 97.17 | 59.26 | 98.54 | 0.58 |
| COACH | 96.99 | 56.27 | 98.46 | 0.55 | |
| FMN | TargetCom | 97.66 | 79.61 | 98.58 | 0.76 |
| COACH | 96.75 | 70.36 | 98.11 | 0.66 | |
| HEME | TargetCom | 94.96 | 69.92 | 97.07 | 0.66 |
| COACH | 94.48 | 61.60 | 97.25 | 0.60 |