Table 2 shows the paired two tailed t-test between each model. All models built from structural properties perform significantly when compared to HMMER. Only, the *pHMM3D* and *pHMMAcc* results are not significant in relation to each other.

![0_image_0.png](0_image_0.png) 

![0_image_2.png](0_image_2.png) 

Table 2. HMMER-STRUCT paired t-test

| HMMER   | pHMM2D   | pHMM3D   | pHMMAcc   |      |
|---------|----------|----------|-----------|------|
| pHMMOi  | 0,00741  | 0,04     | 0,01      | 0,01 |
| pHMMAcc | 0,03877  | 0,01     | 0,05      |      |
| pHMM3D  | 0,01     | 0,01     |           |      |
| pHMM2D  | 0,00660  |          |           |      |

Next, we compare the performance of the model library with respect to the initial HMMER model. To do so, we joined the five models, one for each structural property, and scored the test sequences using *hmmpfam*. Figure 6 shows the ROC curve for the results. Figure 7 shows graphically the results through Precison/Recall curves. Both figures show HMMER-STRUCT outperforming HMMER. Table 3 displays significance results. The difference between HMMER-STRUCT and HMMER results are statistically significant according to paired two tailed t-test. The two tailed t-test also indicate significant differences between HMMER-STRUCT
and each HMMER-STRUCT component, i.e, HMMER, *pHMM2D*, pHMM3D, *pHMMAcc* and *pHMMOi*.

![0_image_1.png](0_image_1.png) 

![0_image_3.png](0_image_3.png) 

5