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 Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold Fold
MCC 0.693 > 0.629
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.672 ± 0.157 > 0.547 ± 0.186
Sensitivity 0.681 > 0.629
Positive Predictive Value 0.715 > 0.639
Total TP 211 > 195
Total TN 20906 > 20896
Total FP 106 < 140
Total FP CONTRA 27 < 32
Total FP INCONS 57 < 78
Total FP COMP 22 < 30
Total FN 99 < 115
P-value 1.93248927742e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher 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



Performance of Fold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Fold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 195
Total TN 20896
Total FP 140
Total FP CONTRA 32
Total FP INCONS 78
Total FP COMP 30
Total FN 115
Total Scores
MCC 0.629
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.547 ± 0.186
Sensitivity 0.629
Positive Predictive Value 0.639
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for Fold [ 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 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3J0L_a - 0.15 0.18 0.17 2 399 11 4 6 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.41 0.42 0.42 8 716 11 4 7 0 11
3O58_3 0.39 0.50 0.31 11 4728 41 9 16 16 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 4 5 0 9
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.59 0.59 13 1254 9 2 7 0 9
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 461 7 0 6 1 10
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 8 0 7 1 10

^top


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