Table 2.

Performance comparisons for different methods in the absence of hand-crafted biological features (take Spearman rank correlation coefficient and mean squared error as evaluation index)

Method	WT-SpCas9		eSpCas9(1.1)		SpCas9-HF1
	Spearman	MSE (× 10–3)	Spearman	MSE (× 10–3)	Spearman	MSE (× 10–3)
XGBoost*	0.845	11.7	0.831	11.5	0.818	13.5
MLP*	0.842	11.7	0.846	10.5	0.844	11.2
CNN*	0.846	11.3	0.831	11.3	0.834	12.0
RNN*	0.856	10.4	0.849	10.2	0.851	10.6
TAC	0.857	10.3	0.844	10.5	0.851	10.7
SpAC	0.862	10.1	0.854	9.93	0.857	10.2
EnAC	0.868	9.51	0.859	9.64	0.862	9.81
CRISPRpred#	0.838	–	0.830	–	0.821	–