CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods
Home

Methods
Datasets
Rankings
RNA 2D Atlas

Help
FAQ

Contact us
RSS feeds
Twitter

Table of contents:

  1. Overview

  2. Performance Plots

  3. Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Cylofold & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Cylofold NanoFolder
MCC 0.705 > 0.616
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.772 ± 0.133 > 0.739 ± 0.164
Sensitivity 0.686 < 0.699
Positive Predictive Value 0.738 > 0.560
Total TP 155 < 158
Total TN 9565 > 9493
Total FP 65 < 140
Total FP CONTRA 16 < 46
Total FP INCONS 39 < 78
Total FP COMP 10 < 16
Total FN 71 > 68
P-value 1.91441904741e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Cylofold and NanoFolder. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is plotted against sensitivity. Each dot represents a single test of each method. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Cylofold and NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Cylofold and NanoFolder. The whiskers correspond to 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate average MCCs and CIs. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Cylofold and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 155
Total TN 9565
Total FP 65
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 39
Total FP COMP 10
Total FN 71
Total Scores
MCC 0.705
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.772 ± 0.133
Sensitivity 0.686
Positive Predictive Value 0.738
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for Cylofold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2LDL_A - 0.81 0.67 1.00 6 134 0 0 0 0 3
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.56 0.55 0.57 16 2412 13 4 8 1 13
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3SN2_B 0.63 0.42 1.00 5 149 0 0 0 0 7
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.45 0.50 0.42 8 1274 18 4 7 7 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 158
Total TN 9493
Total FP 140
Total FP CONTRA 46
Total FP INCONS 78
Total FP COMP 16
Total FN 68
Total Scores
MCC 0.616
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.739 ± 0.164
Sensitivity 0.699
Positive Predictive Value 0.560
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for NanoFolder [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3UZL_B 0.41 0.56 0.31 9 1264 25 10 10 5 7
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.