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 TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(20) & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(20) Cylofold
MCC 0.857 > 0.756
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.858 ± 0.007 > 0.759 ± 0.237
Sensitivity 0.744 > 0.677
Positive Predictive Value 0.990 > 0.849
Total TP 99 > 90
Total TN 14633 > 14627
Total FP 3 < 18
Total FP CONTRA 1 < 3
Total FP INCONS 0 < 13
Total FP COMP 2 = 2
Total FN 34 < 43
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) 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 TurboFold(20) and Cylofold).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for TurboFold(20) and Cylofold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) 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 TurboFold(20) and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 99
Total TN 14633
Total FP 3
Total FP CONTRA 1
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 34
Total Scores
MCC 0.857
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.858 ± 0.007
Sensitivity 0.744
Positive Predictive Value 0.990
Nr of predictions 5

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
PDB_00571 0.85 0.76 0.95 19 3301 1 1 0 0 6
PDB_00828 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2465 0 0 0 0 7
PDB_00829 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 2260 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_01020 0.86 0.74 1.00 17 2261 1 0 0 1 6
PDB_01073 0.86 0.74 1.00 25 4346 1 0 0 1 9

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 90
Total TN 14627
Total FP 18
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 13
Total FP COMP 2
Total FN 43
Total Scores
MCC 0.756
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.759 ± 0.237
Sensitivity 0.677
Positive Predictive Value 0.849
Nr of predictions 5

^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
PDB_00571 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 3300 1 1 0 0 5
PDB_00828 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 6
PDB_00829 0.43 0.42 0.45 10 2256 12 0 12 0 14
PDB_01020 0.86 0.74 1.00 17 2261 1 0 0 1 6
PDB_01073 0.75 0.65 0.88 22 4346 4 2 1 1 12

^top


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