Comparison of RWR with homologous species data against homologous semantic similarity measures.
<p>Probability value (<i>p</i>) annotation are as follows: : , ****: (a) Abbreviations are as follows: ms RWR is RWR with homology, ms jac is multi-species Jaccard, ms cos is multi-species cosine, ms res is multi-species Resnik, and ms lin is multi-species Lin. ms RWR outperformed...
محفوظ في:
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
|---|---|
| مؤلفون آخرون: | , , , , , |
| منشور في: |
2025
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوسوم: |
إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
|
| الملخص: | <p>Probability value (<i>p</i>) annotation are as follows: : , ****: (a) Abbreviations are as follows: ms RWR is RWR with homology, ms jac is multi-species Jaccard, ms cos is multi-species cosine, ms res is multi-species Resnik, and ms lin is multi-species Lin. ms RWR outperformed all other semantic similarity measures in all 13 pathways. (b) Dunn’s test comparison of ms RWR with all semantic similarity measures. discriminative power was significantly higher than all other algorithms.</p> <p>(TIF)</p> |
|---|