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 NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold NanoFolder
MCC 0.520 > 0.410
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.557 ± 0.177 > 0.433 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.433 > 0.411
Positive Predictive Value 0.634 > 0.420
Total TP 97 > 92
Total TN 22694 > 22628
Total FP 57 < 129
Total FP CONTRA 5 < 16
Total FP INCONS 51 < 111
Total FP COMP 1 < 2
Total FN 127 < 132
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 97
Total TN 22694
Total FP 57
Total FP CONTRA 5
Total FP INCONS 51
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 127
Total Scores
MCC 0.520
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.557 ± 0.177
Sensitivity 0.433
Positive Predictive Value 0.634
Nr of predictions 7

^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
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
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 92
Total TN 22628
Total FP 129
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 111
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 132
Total Scores
MCC 0.410
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.433 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.411
Positive Predictive Value 0.420
Nr of predictions 7

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.29 0.33 0.25 13 6054 38 8 30 0 26
3J16_L 0.36 0.37 0.37 11 2745 19 3 16 0 19
3U4M_B - 0.61 0.57 0.66 21 3128 11 1 10 0 16
3UZL_B 0.36 0.35 0.38 13 3536 21 3 18 0 24
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8

^top


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