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 Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold Cylofold
MCC 0.727 > 0.693
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.711 ± 0.122 > 0.672 ± 0.157
Sensitivity 0.719 > 0.681
Positive Predictive Value 0.743 > 0.715
Total TP 223 > 211
Total TN 20901 < 20906
Total FP 94 < 106
Total FP CONTRA 29 > 27
Total FP INCONS 48 < 57
Total FP COMP 17 < 22
Total FN 87 < 99
P-value 2.02510705504e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 223
Total TN 20901
Total FP 94
Total FP CONTRA 29
Total FP INCONS 48
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 87
Total Scores
MCC 0.727
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.711 ± 0.122
Sensitivity 0.719
Positive Predictive Value 0.743
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Contrafold [ 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 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 0 11
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_a - 0.53 0.55 0.55 6 400 6 3 2 1 5
3NKB_B - 0.63 0.68 0.59 13 713 9 0 9 0 6
3O58_3 0.32 0.36 0.29 8 4736 21 7 13 1 14
3PDR_A 0.83 0.86 0.80 43 4786 13 5 6 2 7
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 5 4 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
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.