Comparative performance analysis on synthetic data.

<p>Shown is the accuracy measure (scatter plots, left) and an example (histograms, right) across compared methods and different synthetic data parameters. Left: The accuracy measure (<i>y</i>-axis) using different patterns of genetic effects (impulse, single state-transitioning (sustained), linear, and complex sub-panels). Results are shown over genes that were measured in different numbers of time points (measures were averaged over effect sizes; <i>x</i>-axis, <b>A</b>), or over genes of different effect sizes (averaged over time points; <i>x</i>-axis <b>B</b>). Plots depict six alternative mapping methods (color coded). Right: Examples of performance (<i>y</i>-axis) using the four different dynamic effect patterns (color coded) across various methods (<i>x-</i>axis) for nine time points (<b>A</b>) or for genetic effect size 0.5 (<b>B</b>). The plots indicate that for non-linear genetic effect patterns, DyVER has an advantage over existing methods.