## 4 Results
### Compression Ratio Comparison to Related Research  
The CR performance of BAQALC compared with systematically selected, related research is shown in this section. Note that for related research, CRs were averaged according to their best performance shown in their literature. In addition, most prior published results were reported in percentages. These were translated to CRs by putting 100% into Uncompressed Size (US), and percentages into Compressed Size (CS).  
The results are shown in Table 4. No lossy algorithm solutions were selected because only lossless algorithms were considered for this research. In cases where the data origin was not explicit in the literature, disease marker classifications were shown. Also, in the case of the proposed solution BAQALC, only two sets from each database, i.e., from insulin, leptin, Epstein-Barr virus, cystic fibrosis, and lung cancer (a total of ten), were chosen to match the overall data numbers of other research to minimize bias (stability tends to increase when the number of data increase).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Researches** & **CR** & **Used Data** & **CR Average \(\pm\) SD** \\ \hline  & 6.54 & SRR2916693 & \\  & 6.25 & SRR2949486 & \\  & 3.1 & SRR2911986 & \\  & 2.87 & ERR739513 & \\  & 8.55 & SRR310692 & \\  & 20.0 & ERR3895192 & \\  & 6.25 & ERR386131 & \\  & 4.41 & SRR304509 & \\  & 4.98 & ERR47310 & \\  & 6.99 & ERR194147 & \\ \hline  & 4.95 & SRR2916693 & \\  & 4.31 & SRR2949368 & \\  & 4.93 & SRR3106902 & \\ DSRC & 12.82 & ERR389512 & 5.83 \(\pm\) 2.89 \\  & 5.95 & ERR36131 & \\  & 3.83 & SRR34509 & \\  & 4.95 & ERR47310 & \\  & 4.93 & ERR194147 & \\ \hline  & 7.87 & SRR2916693 & \\  & 3.1 & SRR211986 & \\  & 2.87 & ERR39513 & \\  & 17.24 & ERR389512 & 6.96 \(\pm\) 5.4 \\  & 6.45 & ERR38131 & \\  & 4.22 & SRR34509 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: CR Comparison between BAQALC and Related Researches.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Solutions** & **CR** & **Used Data** & **CR Average \(\pm\) SD** \\ \hline  & 4.13 & SRR2916693 & \\  & 3.51 & SRR2994368 & \\  & 2.75 & SRR321986 & \\  & 2.52 & ERR379513 & \\  & 4.1 & SRR3190692 & \\  & 7.19 & ERR389512 & \\  & 4.65 & ERR386131 & \\ Bzip 2 & 3.17 & SRR304509 & 3.99 \(\pm\) 1.15 \\  & 3.82 & ERR174310 & \\  & 5.08 & ERR194147 & \\  & 3.52 & Cholerea \\  & 3.57 & Abessessus & \\  & 3.41 & S. cerevisiae & \\  & 3.43 & N. crassa & \\  & 5.04 & Chr22 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._LW-FQZip 2 had a CR of 6.99 (SD 4.9 according to short/long reads) regardless of long reads and short reads. QUIP's CR was 5.82 on average (SD 3.16 according to short/long reads). DSRC 2's average and SD were 5.83 and 2.89. CRAM showed a CR of 3.74 on average and 0.68 SD. LFQC showed a CR of 6.96 on average and SD of 5.4. In the case of SCALCE, the average and SD CRs were 6.59 and 3.5. UHT's average and SD CRs were 3.91 and 0.5. UHTL's average and SD CRs were 4.08 and 0.55. MUHTL's average and SD CRs were 4.09 and 0.55, and finally, FQZCOMP's were 5.95 and 1.31.  
BAQALC showed the highest compression performance between the related algorithms, with a CR of 12.51. The poorest stability was shown by LFQC, with an SD of 5.1, although the compression performance was relatively impressive. UHT showed highest stability with an SD of 0.5, but its compression ranking was the worst, with 3.91.