Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 21;12:10487. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13951-2

Table 2.

Comparison of the PPI interface performance of the single-task model against different multi-task models.

PPI dataset PPI_extendedSFD dataset
AUC ROC AUC PR AUC ROC AUC PR
IF 73.17 ± 0.36 31.71 ± 1.01 73.17 ± 0.36 31.71 ± 1.01
IFBU 74.85 ± 0.19 34.37 ± 0.32 75.15 ± 0.20 35.35 ± 0.17
IFBUSA 75.08 ± 0.24 35.62 ± 0.97 75.92 ± 0.21 36.65 ± 0.42
IFBUS3SA 75.73 ± 0.50 35.79 ± 1.44 76.32 ± 0.23 38.44 ± 0.92
IFBUS8SA 75.73 ± 0.31 36.39 ± 0.74 76.20 ± 0.24 37.95 ± 0.52
IFBUS3S8SA 75.73 ± 0.21 36.46 ± 1.13 76.06 ± 0.14 38.16 ± 0.93

The mean AUC ROC and AUC PR scores and the corresponding standard deviations, on the validation set after training the models four times, are shown. Performance is measured on the validation set of both the PPI dataset and the augmented PPI_extendedSFD dataset. The multi-task models outperform the single task model (73.17 ± 0.36 AUC ROC) significantly on both dataset (P < 0.001). The overall highest AUC ROC score (76.32 ± 0.23), shown in bold, is reached when including buried residues, secondary structure in three classes and absolute solvent accessibility as related prediction tasks in addition to the PPI interface prediction on the PPI_extendedSFD dataset.