. 2018 Jan 25;19:23. doi: 10.1186/s12859-018-2025-5

Table 3.

Performances of Scuba and of some gene prioritization web tools in the unbiased setting of Börnigen et al. [20]

Tool/Method	Response	Rank	Rank	TPR in top	TPR in top	TPR in top	AUC
	rate (%)	median	average	5% (%)	10% (%)	30% (%)
Genome-wide prioritization methods
Scuba	100	10.55	20.48 ± 23.53	33.3	47.6	78.6	0.80
Candid [44]	100	18.10	27.35 ± 24.62	21.4	33.3	64.3	0.73
Endeavour [39]	100	15.49	21.47 ± 22.37	28.6	38.1	71.4	0.79
Pinta [41]	100	19.03	23.52 ± 23.58	26.2	31.0	71.4	0.77
Candidate set-based prioritization methods
Scuba	100	12.95	23.32 ± 25.46	28.6	45.2	73.8	0.78
Suspects [45]	88.9^a	12.77^a	24.64 ± 26.42^a	33.3^a	33.3^a	63.0^a	0.76^a
ToppGene [40]	97.6	16.80	34.53 ± 35.31	35.7	42.9	52.4	0.66
GeneWanderer-RW [43]	88.1	22.10	29.55 ± 26.28	16.7	26.2	61.9	0.71
Posmed-KS [46]	47.6	31.44	42.07 ± 30.98	4.7	7.1	23.8	0.58
GeneDistiller [38]	97.6	11.11	15.37 ± 13.77	26.2	47.6	78.6	0.85
Endeavour [39]	100	11.16	18.41 ± 21.39	26.2	42.9	90.5	0.82
Pinta [41]	100	18.87	25.23 ± 24.72	28.6	31.0	71.4	0.75

Response rate is the percentage of gene-disease associations considered by each tool. Values for Suspects were computed on the first 27 associations only (highlighted by ^a)

Italics indicates the top ranking score of each column