Advertisement

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Correction

Correction: Novel comparison of evaluation metrics for gene ontology classifiers reveals drastic performance differences

  • Ilya Plyusnin,
  • Liisa Holm,
  • Petri Törönen

There are several errors in Table 1. The values for the column rec in rows ic SimGIC2, ic2 SimGIC2, AJacc E, and ic2 Smin1 are incorrect. Please see the correct Table 1 here.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Summary of results for best performing and widely-used metrics.

Here we show RC (Rank Correlation) and FP (False Positive) results for the best performing methods. We also show same results for some widely-used metrics. Good metrics should have a high RC score and low FP scores. Rec column shows our selected recommendations (See text for details). The five best results in each column are shown in bold. The five weakest results in each column are shown with underlined italics. Metrics that fail a given test are highlighted in red (see text for details). Note how methods in lower block show consistent weak performance either in RC or FP tests.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010249.t001

Reference

  1. 1. Plyusnin I, Holm L, Törönen P (2019) Novel comparison of evaluation metrics for gene ontology classifiers reveals drastic performance differences. PLoS Comput Biol 15(11): e1007419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007419 pmid:31682632

Citation: Plyusnin I, Holm L, Törönen P (2022) Correction: Novel comparison of evaluation metrics for gene ontology classifiers reveals drastic performance differences. PLoS Comput Biol 18(6): e1010249. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010249

Published: June 9, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Plyusnin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.