 | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
Table of contents:
- Overview
- Performance Plots
- Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
- Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison
- Compile and download dataset for ContextFold & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...
Overview
| Metric | ContextFold | Cylofold | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 0.703 | > | 0.578 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.720 ± 0.117 | > | 0.642 ± 0.123 |
| Sensitivity | 0.591 | > | 0.494 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.842 | > | 0.686 |
| Total TP | 278 | > | 232 |
| Total TN | 43528 | > | 43520 |
| Total FP | 60 | < | 111 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 5 | < | 9 |
| Total FP INCONS | 47 | < | 97 |
| Total FP COMP | 8 | > | 5 |
| Total FN | 192 | < | 238 |
| P-value | 5.19332990918e-08 | ||
Performance plots
Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold
| Total Base Pair Counts | |
|---|---|
| Total TP | 278 |
| Total TN | 43528 |
| Total FP | 60 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 5 |
| Total FP INCONS | 47 |
| Total FP COMP | 8 |
| Total FN | 192 |
| Total Scores | |
|---|---|
| MCC | 0.703 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.720 ± 0.117 |
| Sensitivity | 0.591 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.842 |
| Nr of predictions | 23 |
2. Individual counts for ContextFold [ download as .csv ]
| RNA Chain | Rfam family | MCC | SENS | PPV | TP | TN | FP | FP CONTRA | FP INCONS | FP COMP | FN |
| 2LC8_A | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.63 | 10 | 1524 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 10 | |
| 2LDL_A | - | 0.90 | 0.82 | 1.00 | 9 | 342 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2LI4_A | - | 0.93 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 14 | 482 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2LK3_A | - | 0.89 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 8 | 268 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2LKR_A | - | 0.65 | 0.56 | 0.76 | 22 | 6076 | 9 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 17 |
| 2LWK_A | - | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.92 | 11 | 484 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 3J0L_h | - | 0.82 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 29 | 6076 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 14 |
| 3J0L_2 | - | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 20 | 6187 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
| 3J0L_1 | - | 0.70 | 0.58 | 0.85 | 11 | 1212 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
| 3J0L_7 | - | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 1212 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 17 |
| 3J0L_a | - | 0.71 | 0.56 | 0.90 | 9 | 1118 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| 3J0L_g | - | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 462 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 3J16_L | 0.75 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 17 | 2758 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | |
| 3SN2_B | 0.96 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 11 | 395 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 3TRZ_Z | - | 0.91 | 0.83 | 1.00 | 5 | 205 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 3TS2_V | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5 | 271 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3U4M_B | - | 0.75 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 21 | 3139 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
| 3UZL_B | 0.72 | 0.54 | 0.95 | 20 | 3549 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | |
| 3VJR_D | - | 0.96 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 12 | 618 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 4A4U_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9 | 222 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4AOB_A | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.68 | 17 | 4346 | 9 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 25 | |
| 4ENB_A | 0.69 | 0.47 | 1.00 | 9 | 1266 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | |
| 4ENC_A | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.90 | 9 | 1316 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold
| Total Base Pair Counts | |
|---|---|
| Total TP | 232 |
| Total TN | 43520 |
| Total FP | 111 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 9 |
| Total FP INCONS | 97 |
| Total FP COMP | 5 |
| Total FN | 238 |
| Total Scores | |
|---|---|
| MCC | 0.578 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.642 ± 0.123 |
| Sensitivity | 0.494 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.686 |
| Nr of predictions | 23 |
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 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.69 | 11 | 1524 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 9 | |
| 2LDL_A | - | 0.73 | 0.55 | 1.00 | 6 | 345 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2LI4_A | - | 0.93 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 14 | 482 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2LK3_A | - | 0.95 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 9 | 267 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2LKR_A | - | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.59 | 17 | 6076 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 22 |
| 2LWK_A | - | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 10 | 485 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 3J0L_h | - | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.62 | 16 | 6079 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 27 |
| 3J0L_2 | - | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.43 | 12 | 6188 | 18 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 21 |
| 3J0L_1 | - | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.90 | 9 | 1215 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| 3J0L_7 | - | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 5 | 1210 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 12 |
| 3J0L_a | - | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 3 | 1117 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 13 |
| 3J0L_g | - | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 461 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| 3J16_L | 0.75 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 17 | 2758 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | |
| 3SN2_B | 0.64 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 5 | 401 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | |
| 3TRZ_Z | - | 0.91 | 0.83 | 1.00 | 5 | 205 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 3TS2_V | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5 | 271 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3U4M_B | - | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.46 | 12 | 3134 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 25 |
| 3UZL_B | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.54 | 14 | 3544 | 12 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 23 | |
| 3VJR_D | - | 0.96 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 12 | 618 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 4A4U_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9 | 222 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4AOB_A | 0.35 | 0.26 | 0.48 | 11 | 4348 | 13 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 31 | |
| 4ENB_A | 0.89 | 0.79 | 1.00 | 15 | 1260 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
| 4ENC_A | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.94 | 15 | 1310 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.