Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of the networks – undirected graphs – produced by three different approaches: the LP-based method proposed here, and techniques proposed by the top two teams of the DREAM2 competition (Challenge 4).

From: A linear programming approach for estimating the structure of a sparse linear genetic network from transcript profiling data

Dataset

Team

Precision at kthcorrect prediction

Area Under PR Curve

Area Under ROC Curve

  

k = 1

k = 2

k = 5

k = 20

  

IN SILICO 1

Team 70

1.000000

1.000000

1.000000

1.000000

0.596721

0.829266

 

Team 80

0.142857

0.181818

0.045045

0.059524

0.070330

0.459704

 

LP-SLGN

0.083333

0.086957

0.089286

0.117647

0.087302

0.509624

IN SILICO 2

Team 80

0.333333

0.074074

0.102041

0.069204

0.080266

0.536187

 

Team 70

0.142857

0.250000

0.121320

0.081528

0.084303

0.511436

 

LP-SLGN

1.000000

1.000000

0.192308

0.183486

0.200265

0.750921

IN SILICO 3

LP-SLGN

0.068966

0.068966

0.068966

0.068966

0.068966

0.500000

  1. For the first k predictions (ranked by score, and for predictions with the same score, taken in the order they were submitted in the prediction files), the DREAM2 evaluation script defines precision as the fraction of correct predictions of k, and recall as the proportion of correct predictions out of all the possible true connections. The other metrics are the Precision-Recall (PR) and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves.