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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold Cylofold
MCC 0.755 > 0.693
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.724 ± 0.121 > 0.672 ± 0.157
Sensitivity 0.713 > 0.681
Positive Predictive Value 0.807 > 0.715
Total TP 221 > 211
Total TN 20927 > 20906
Total FP 70 < 106
Total FP CONTRA 15 < 27
Total FP INCONS 38 < 57
Total FP COMP 17 < 22
Total FN 89 < 99
P-value 1.87872347734e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold 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 CentroidFold and Cylofold).

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

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 221
Total TN 20927
Total FP 70
Total FP CONTRA 15
Total FP INCONS 38
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 89
Total Scores
MCC 0.755
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.724 ± 0.121
Sensitivity 0.713
Positive Predictive Value 0.807
Nr of predictions 13

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.51 0.39 0.70 7 518 3 1 2 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.36 0.50 4 403 5 3 1 1 7
3NKB_B - 0.66 0.68 0.65 13 715 7 0 7 0 6
3O58_3 0.44 0.41 0.47 9 4745 11 1 9 1 13
3PDR_A 0.88 0.86 0.90 43 4792 7 2 3 2 7
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 4 4 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 211
Total TN 20906
Total FP 106
Total FP CONTRA 27
Total FP INCONS 57
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 99
Total Scores
MCC 0.693
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.672 ± 0.157
Sensitivity 0.681
Positive Predictive Value 0.715
Nr of predictions 13

^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
2KRL_A - 0.85 0.87 0.83 20 2000 12 4 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
3ADB_C - 0.84 0.82 0.87 27 1788 4 0 4 0 6
3J0L_a - 0.17 0.18 0.20 2 401 9 3 5 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.46 0.42 0.53 8 720 7 0 7 0 11
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
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
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.