Confronta i metodi

	Richiamo (Sensibilità)	Punteggio F1	Coefficiente di Correlazione di Matthews	Precisione
Campo	Valutazione dei modelli	Valutazione dei modelli	Valutazione dei modelli	Valutazione dei modelli
Famiglia	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM	MCDM
Anno di origine	20th century	1979	1975	20th century
Ideatore	Historical statistical foundations	C. J. van Rijsbergen	Brian W. Matthews	Historical statistical foundations
Tipo	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric	Evaluation metric
Fonte seminale	Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861-874.	van Rijsbergen, C. J. (1979). Information Retrieval (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.	Matthews, B. W. (1975). Comparison of predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Protein Structure, 405(2), 442-451.	Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861-874.
Alias	Sensitivity, True Positive Rate, TPR	F-measure, Harmonic Mean	Phi Coefficient, Binary Classification Correlation	Positive Predictive Value, PPV
Correlati	5	5	5	5
Sintesi	Recall measures the proportion of actual positive cases that were correctly identified by the classifier. It answers the question: 'Of all the cases that were truly positive, how many did we find?' Recall is critical in scenarios where missing positive cases is costly.	The F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall, providing a single metric that balances both concerns. It was introduced by van Rijsbergen in information retrieval and has become a standard metric for evaluating classification models where both precision and recall are important.	The Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) is a correlation measure between predicted and actual binary classifications. It ranges from -1 to 1 and is considered one of the most reliable single-score metrics for evaluating binary classifiers, especially on imbalanced datasets.	Precision measures the proportion of positive predictions that were actually correct. It answers the question: 'Of all the cases we predicted as positive, how many were truly positive?' Precision is critical in scenarios where false positives are costly.