Table 3 Comparison of the best ensemble... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3

Comparison of the best ensemble here with the best reported in the literature

Method	Aiming	Coverage	Accuracy	Abs. True	Abs. False
EnsATC	0.9139	0.8432	0.8338	0.8009	0.0131
Chen et al. [7]	0.5076	0.7579	0.4938	0.1383	0.0883
EnsANET_LR [13]	0.7536	0.8249	0.7512	0.6668	0.0262
EnsLIFT [11]	0.7818	0.7577	0.7121	0.6330	0.0285
iATC-mISF [9]	0.6783	0.6710	0.6641	0.6098	0.0585
iATC-mHYb [10]	0.7191	0.7146	0.7132	0.6675	0.0243
iATC_Deep-mISF [27]	0.7470	0.7391	0.7157	0.6701	0.0000
NRAKEL [26]	0.7888	0.7936	0.7786	0.7593	0.0363
FRAKEL [16]	0.7851	0.7840	0.7721	0.7511	0.0370
NLSP [15]	0.8135	0.7950	0.7828	0.7497	0.0343
FUS3 [14]	0.8755	0.6973	0.7346	0.6871	0.0238
CGATCPred [17]	0.8194	0.8288	0.8081	0.7658	0.0275

Method	Aiming	Coverage	Accuracy	Abs. True	Abs. False
EnsATC	0.9139	0.8432	0.8338	0.8009	0.0131
Chen et al. [7]	0.5076	0.7579	0.4938	0.1383	0.0883
EnsANET_LR [13]	0.7536	0.8249	0.7512	0.6668	0.0262
EnsLIFT [11]	0.7818	0.7577	0.7121	0.6330	0.0285
iATC-mISF [9]	0.6783	0.6710	0.6641	0.6098	0.0585
iATC-mHYb [10]	0.7191	0.7146	0.7132	0.6675	0.0243
iATC_Deep-mISF [27]	0.7470	0.7391	0.7157	0.6701	0.0000
NRAKEL [26]	0.7888	0.7936	0.7786	0.7593	0.0363
FRAKEL [16]	0.7851	0.7840	0.7721	0.7511	0.0370
NLSP [15]	0.8135	0.7950	0.7828	0.7497	0.0343
FUS3 [14]	0.8755	0.6973	0.7346	0.6871	0.0238
CGATCPred [17]	0.8194	0.8288	0.8081	0.7658	0.0275