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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST Cylofold
MCC 0.696 > 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.329 < 0.663 ± 0.246
Sensitivity 0.589 < 0.650
Positive Predictive Value 0.835 > 0.693
Total TP 96 < 106
Total TN 6904 > 6866
Total FP 21 < 49
Total FP CONTRA 2 < 13
Total FP INCONS 17 < 34
Total FP COMP 2 = 2
Total FN 67 > 57
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Cylofold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 96
Total TN 6904
Total FP 21
Total FP CONTRA 2
Total FP INCONS 17
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 67
Total Scores
MCC 0.696
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.615 ± 0.329
Sensitivity 0.589
Positive Predictive Value 0.835
Nr of predictions 8

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 408 3 1 2 0 11
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.77 0.66 0.90 19 1512 2 1 1 0 10
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
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 106
Total TN 6866
Total FP 49
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 34
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 57
Total Scores
MCC 0.664
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.246
Sensitivity 0.650
Positive Predictive Value 0.693
Nr of predictions 8

^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
3J0L_a - 0.17 0.18 0.20 2 401 9 3 5 1 9
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.