Skip to main content
. 2017 Jan 27;33(11):1681–1688. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx043

Table 1.

Performance comparison result

Tools #Matched complexes #Total complexes #Matched known complexes Precision Recall F-measure

Human
NEOComplex 538 1154 1100 0.47 0.47 0.47
    MCL 153 389 391 0.39 0.17 0.23
    MCODE 33 63 115 0.52 0.05 0.09
    CMC 1402 5417 1673 0.26 0.71 0.38
    COACH 1024 4274 1150 0.24 0.49 0.32
    ClusterONE 271 495 609 0.55 0.26 0.35

Yeast
    NEOComplex 334 777 519 0.43 0.41 0.42
    MCL 27 46 72 0.59 0.06 0.10
    MCODE 17 18 41 0.94 0.03 0.06
    CMC 367 2316 520 0.16 0.41 0.23
    COACH 341 1517 333 0.22 0.26 0.24
    ClusterONE 184 259 359 0.71 0.28 0.40

Fly
    NEOComplex 191 483 468 0.40 0.29 0.33
    MCL 113 324 292 0.35 0.18 0.23
    MCODE 45 90 97 0.5 0.06 0.11
    CMC 167 445 453 0.38 0.28 0.32
    COACH 274 701 484 0.39 0.30 0.33
    ClusterONE 131 224 317 0.58 0.19 0.29

Note:#Matched complexes is the number of predicted complexes that match at least a known complex. #Total complexes is the total number of predicted complexes generated by each approach. #Matched known complexes is the number of known complexes in a reference set matched with the complexes derived by each approach. Note that the number of the known complexes in human, yeast and fly are 2351, 1278 and 1637, respectively.