Table 3.
Performance comparison on the benchmark dataset PDB1075.
| Method | OA (%) | SN (%) | SP (%) | MCC | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNA-Prot | 72.55 | 82.67 | 59.76 | 0.44 | 0.7890 |
| iDNA-Prot | 75.40 | 83.81 | 64.73 | 0.50 | 0.7610 |
| iDNA-Prot|dis | 77.30 | 79.40 | 75.27 | 0.54 | 0.8260 |
| DNABinder | 73.95 | 68.57 | 79.09 | 0.48 | 0.8140 |
| Kmerl+ACC | 75.23 | 76.76 | 73.76 | 0.50 | 0.8280 |
| iDNAPro-PseAAC | 76.76 | 75.62 | 77.45 | 0.53 | 0.8392 |
| Local-DPP | 79.20 | 84.00 | 74.50 | 0.59 | — |
| HMMBinder | 86.33 | 87.07 | 85.55 | 0.72 | 0.9026 |
| StackDPPred | 89.96 | 91.12 | 88.80 | 0.80 | 0.9449 |
| Our method | 92.42 | 92.47 | 92.36 | 0.85 | 0.9677 |