Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 14;14(10):e0223596. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223596

Table 2. Classification (TP, FP, FN) and performance (p, r, F) results without repetitions.

Four cavity detection methods are benchmarked against the ground-truth: Fpocket, GaussianFinder, GHECOM, and KVfinder.

Method APOs HOLOs APOs + HOLOs
TP FP FN p r F TP FP FN p r F p r F
Fpocket 4697 4763 8291 0.50 0.36 0.42 13932 17522 20651 0.44 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.39 0.42
GaussianFinder 3774 4711 9214 0.44 0.29 0.35 9724 14793 24859 0.40 0.28 0.33 0.41 0.28 0.34
GHECOM 3629 8259 9359 0.31 0.28 0.29 10027 27233 24556 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.28
KVFinder 2608 2688 10380 0.49 0.20 0.29 7398 7985 27185 0.48 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.21 0.29

Abbreviations:

APOs: apo proteins; HOLOs: holo proteins.

TP: true positives; FP: false positives; FN: false negatives.

p: precision; r: recall; F: F-score.