Table 8.
Overall performance of CBOW and Skip-gram according to the voting system: Number of unique UniProtKB entries and number of term pairs for protein/gene names that are involved in Experiment I, II, and combined (i.e. merging Experiment I and II)
| Voting system | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment | Model | Number of terms pairs | Number of UniProtKB entries | Number FTV |
Number FTV for top three | Number TV (%) |
| I | CBOW | 1020 | 64 | 31 | 21 | 43 (67%) |
| II | CBOW | 816 | 63 | 29 | 21 | 49 (78%) |
| I and II combined |
CBOW | 1836 | 79 | 47 | 37 | 64 (81%) |
| I | Skip-gram | 1020 | 64 | 49 | 37 | 57 (89%) |
| II | Skip-gram | 816 | 63 | 56 | 51 | 60 (95%) |
| I and II combined |
Skip-gram | 1836 | 79 | 71 | 63 | 77 (97%) |
According to the voting system, for each model the last three columns show: the number of full term variants among the top twelve ranked candidate terms for the UniProtKB entries (Number FTV column); the number of full term variants among the top three ranked candidate terms for the UniProtKB entries (Number FTV for top three); and the number and % of term variants (i.e. FTV and/or PTV) among the top twelve ranked candidate terms for the UniProtKB entries (Number TV column)