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 ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Cylofold
MCC 0.608 > 0.492
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.551 ± 0.172 > 0.474 ± 0.169
Sensitivity 0.492 > 0.422
Positive Predictive Value 0.759 > 0.584
Total TP 154 > 132
Total TN 32953 > 32930
Total FP 54 < 97
Total FP CONTRA 5 < 9
Total FP INCONS 44 < 85
Total FP COMP 5 > 3
Total FN 159 < 181
P-value 2.08252958266e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 154
Total TN 32953
Total FP 54
Total FP CONTRA 5
Total FP INCONS 44
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 159
Total Scores
MCC 0.608
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.551 ± 0.172
Sensitivity 0.492
Positive Predictive Value 0.759
Nr of predictions 12

^top



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
2LKR_A - 0.65 0.56 0.76 22 6076 9 0 7 2 17
3J0L_a - 0.71 0.56 0.90 9 1118 1 0 1 0 7
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 462 3 1 2 0 4
3J0L_2 - 0.64 0.61 0.69 20 6187 11 2 7 2 13
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
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
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

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 132
Total TN 32930
Total FP 97
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 85
Total FP COMP 3
Total FN 181
Total Scores
MCC 0.492
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.474 ± 0.169
Sensitivity 0.422
Positive Predictive Value 0.584
Nr of predictions 12

^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 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.50 0.44 0.59 17 6076 12 2 10 0 22
3J0L_a - 0.22 0.19 0.27 3 1117 8 1 7 0 13
3J0L_7 - 0.30 0.29 0.33 5 1210 10 0 10 0 12
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
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
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

^top


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