TABLE 9.

Comparing PointFinder and PhyResSE prediction performance.

Drug	Res	Sus	PointFinder			PhyResSE			p-value
			Spec.	Sens.	MCC	Spec.	Sens.	MCC
RMP	14	77	0.961	1.000	0.890	0.935	1.000	0.830	0.751
INH	29	62	0.952	0.897	0.848	0.968	0.931	0.899	0.262
STM	37	54	0.981	0.649	0.693	0.981	0.838	0.843	0.047∗
EMB	14	77	0.961	0.857	0.796	0.974	0.857	0.831	0.395
PZA	8!	83!	0.964	0.750	0.677	0.964	0.625!	0.589	0.666

! Indicates that data varied from the previously published results, since the number of resistance and susceptible samples found in the published Supplementary Data did not correlate with amount assessed after rerunning the data through PheResSE. Res, number of resistant strains determined by drug susceptibility testing; Sus, number of susceptible strains determined by drug susceptibility testing; Spec, specificity; Sens, sensitivity; MCC, Mathew Correlation Coefficient; RMP, Rifampicin; INH, Isoniazid; STM, Streptomycin; EMB, Ethambutol; PZA, Pyrazinamide. It was tested weather PhyResSE was performing significantly better using bootstrapping, and the p-value is given, and the significance level was set at 0.05 indicated with ^∗.