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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASampler(20) & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Cylofold
MCC 0.797 > 0.703
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.783 ± 0.111 > 0.728 ± 0.162
Sensitivity 0.689 < 0.703
Positive Predictive Value 0.928 > 0.711
Total TP 244 < 249
Total TN 26062 > 25975
Total FP 45 < 136
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 31
Total FP INCONS 13 < 70
Total FP COMP 26 < 35
Total FN 110 > 105
P-value 1.06761512825e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and Cylofold. 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 RNASampler(20) and Cylofold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and Cylofold. 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 RNASampler(20) and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASampler(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 244
Total TN 26062
Total FP 45
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 26
Total FN 110
Total Scores
MCC 0.797
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.783 ± 0.111
Sensitivity 0.689
Positive Predictive Value 0.928
Nr of predictions 14

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 2 0 0 2 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.34 0.11 1.00 4 2041 0 0 0 0 31
3AMU_B 0.95 0.95 0.95 18 1138 4 0 1 3 1
3IZF_C 0.92 0.86 1.00 30 2610 2 0 0 2 5
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 5 0 0 5 4
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 19 5 5 9 11
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 5 1 2 2 12
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.81 0.69 0.95 20 1512 1 0 1 0 9
4AOB_A 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 1417 4 0 3 1 12
4ENB_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 465 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 249
Total TN 25975
Total FP 136
Total FP CONTRA 31
Total FP INCONS 70
Total FP COMP 35
Total FN 105
Total Scores
MCC 0.703
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.728 ± 0.162
Sensitivity 0.703
Positive Predictive Value 0.711
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
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2XKV_B 0.41 0.55 0.32 6 1816 25 9 4 12 5
2XQD_Y 0.89 0.95 0.83 20 1105 5 4 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.10 0.11 0.11 4 2009 32 2 30 0 31
3AMU_B 0.77 0.79 0.75 15 1137 8 0 5 3 4
3IZF_C 0.85 0.83 0.88 29 2607 7 0 4 3 6
3O58_2 0.90 0.84 0.96 26 2727 3 0 1 2 5
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 30 9 11 10 11
3PDR_A 0.86 0.78 0.95 39 4799 4 1 1 2 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 0 0 0 0 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top


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