Table 3 |
||||||
|
MAPP performance by EGASP criteria |
||||||
|
t |
Sn50 |
PPV50 |
F50 |
Sn100 |
PPV100 |
F100 |
|
|
||||||
|
1.0 |
0.28 |
0.72 |
0.40 |
0.36 |
0.80 |
0.49 |
|
≥ 0.9 |
0.34 |
0.41 |
0.37 |
0.49 |
0.54 |
0.51 |
|
≥ 0.8 |
0.35 |
0.35 |
0.35 |
0.52 |
0.46 |
0.49 |
|
≥ 0.7 |
0.37 |
0.32 |
0.34 |
0.55 |
0.43 |
0.48 |
|
≥ 0.6 |
0.37 |
0.29 |
0.32 |
0.56 |
0.41 |
0.47 |
|
≥ 0.5 |
0.37 |
0.27 |
0.31 |
0.57 |
0.38 |
0.46 |
|
≥ 0.4 |
0.36 |
0.24 |
0.29 |
0.57 |
0.36 |
0.44 |
|
≥ 0.3 |
0.35 |
0.22 |
0.27 |
0.59 |
0.34 |
0.43 |
|
|
||||||
|
The performance of the MAPP was assessed using the criteria designed for the EGASP promoter prediction workshop. Each analysis was run with a TP window acceptance size (w) of ± 50 nucleotides or ± 100 nucleotides. t, MAPP score clustering threshold; PPVw, positive predictive value; Snw, sensitivity; Fw, harmonic mean. |
||||||
|
Brick et al. Genome Biology 2008 9:R178 doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-12-r178 |
||||||