Table 5.
Performance comparisons between Meta-iAVP and the three existing methods as assessed by the five-repeated five-fold cross-validation and independent validation tests.
| Dataset | Method a | Ac (%) | Sn (%) | Sp (%) | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T544p+407n | AVPpred | 85.00 | 82.20 | 88.20 | 0.70 |
| Chang et al.’s method | 85.10 | 86.60 | 83.00 | 0.70 | |
| AntiVPP 1.0 | - | - | - | - | |
| Meta-iAVP | 88.20 | 89.20 | 86.90 | 0.76 | |
| T544p+544n | AVPpred | 90.00 | 89.70 | 90.30 | 0.80 |
| Chang et al.’s method | 91.50 | 89.00 | 94.10 | 0.83 | |
| AntiVPP 1.0 | - | - | - | - | |
| Meta-iAVP | 93.20 | 89.00 | 97.40 | 0.87 | |
| V60p+45n | AVPpred | 85.70 | 88.30 | 82.20 | 0.71 |
| Chang et al.’s method | 89.50 | 91.70 | 86.70 | 0.79 | |
| AntiVPP 1.0 | - | - | - | - | |
| Meta-iAVP | 95.20 | 96.70 | 93.20 | 0.90 | |
| V60p+60n | AVPpred | 92.50 | 93.30 | 91.70 | 0.85 |
| Chang et al.’s method | 93.30 | 91.70 | 95.00 | 0.87 | |
| AntiVPP 1.0 | 93.00 | 87.00 | 97.00 | 0.87 | |
| Meta-iAVP | 94.90 | 91.70 | 98.30 | 0.90 |
a Results were reported from the works of AVPpred, Chang et al.’s method, and AntiVPP 1.0. The highest values for each performance measure are shown in bold.