Abstract | The method was bench marked on a dataset of 6,282 pairs of known interacting ligand-target pairs reaching a 0.96 of area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) when using the drug names as an input feature for the classifier, and a 0.70 of AUC for “anonymous” compounds or compounds not present in the training set. |
Discussion | The AUC was excellent when using drug names and scores as input feature for the predictions. |
Discussion | When only the scores of the predictions were used (that is, treating the compound as anonymous), there was a clear decrease in the AUC suggesting that the method performs better for already known chemical entities rather than for new unseen compounds. |
nAnnoLyze benchmarking | The RFC correctly recalled 66% of the pairs with a precision of 0.73 and an AUC of 0.71 using a 10-fold cross validation (Table 1). |
nAnnoLyze benchmarking | However, by using the DrugBank ID as an input feature, the accuracy of nAnnoLyze dramatically improves to a 0.93 precision, 0.93 recall and a 0.97 of AUC (Fig. |
Detection of artificial EPSCs immersed in fluctuating noise | Using ROC analysis (1ms timescale, 10-fold cross-validated), we find that spikes are predicted with an area-under-the-curve ( AUC ) of 0.71:0.01 for Model 1, while Model 2 yields 0.72:0.01, 0.74:0.01, and 0.77:0.01 as the input amplitude increases from 0.5 a, to 1.00 a, to 1.5 a. |
Detection of artificial EPSCs immersed in fluctuating noise | However, Model 2 provides better spike prediction ( AUC ) in all cases (paired t-tests, p = 0.01, p<10_5, p<10_3). |
Prediction of spikes | With few inputs, the post-synaptic firing is dominated by post-spike effects and timing of postsynaptic spikes is predicted relatively inaccurately ( AUC = 0.78 for this example with 4 inputs). |
Prediction of spikes | With an increasing fraction of inputs included in the model, their contribution to spike prediction increases, and timing of individual spikes is predicted with progressively increasing accuracy ( AUC = 0.82, 0.86, and 0.98 for 256, 512, and 1024 inputs, respectively). |
U | B) Model accuracy: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the example cell and area under the curve ( AUC ) for all cells from A. Curves show the cross-validated false positive rate (FPR) vs true positive rate (TPR) for spike detection in 1ms bins. |