Table 5.

Comparison of established methods using the S. cerevisiae dataset.

Model	Acc. (%)	Pre. (%)	Sen. (%)	MCC (%)
ACC (Guo, et al., 2008)16	89.33	88.87	89.93	N/A
AC (Guo, et al., 2008)16	87.36	87.82	87.30	N/A
Cod1 (Yang, et al., 2010)17	75.08	74.75	75.81	N/A
Cod2 (Yang, et al., 2010)17	80.04	82.17	76.77	N/A
Cod3 (Yang, et al., 2010)17	80.41	81.66	78.14	N/A
Cod4 (Yang, et al., 2010)17	86.15	90.24	81.03	N/A
SVM+LD (Zhou, et al., 2011)71	88.56	89.50	87.37	77.15
RF+PR+LPQ (Wong, et al., 2015)72	93.80	96.66	90.64	88.35
PCVMZM (Wang, et al., 2017)73	94.48	93.92	95.13	89.58
DeepPPI (Du, et al., 2017)74	94.43	96.65	92.06	88.97
DPPI (Hashemifar, et al., 2018)36	94.55	96.68	92.24	N/A
LightGBM (Chen, et al., 2019)20	95.07	97.82	92.21	90.30
PIPR (Chen, et al., 2019)37	97.09	97.00	97.17	95.63
StackPPI(Cheng, et al., 2020)22	94.64	96.33	92.81	89.34
TAGPPI(Song, et al., 2022)75	97.81	98.10	98.26	95.63
Our model (SVM-NVDT)	99.20	99.35	99.03	98.39

Note: N/A means not available.