 | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
Table of contents:
- Overview
- Performance Plots
- Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
- Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison
- Compile and download dataset for CRWrnafold & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...
Overview
| Metric | CRWrnafold | Cylofold | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 0.663 | > | 0.651 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.667 ± 0.152 | > | 0.665 ± 0.131 |
| Sensitivity | 0.661 | > | 0.639 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.678 | > | 0.677 |
| Total TP | 251 | > | 243 |
| Total TN | 18304 | < | 18315 |
| Total FP | 150 | > | 137 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 34 | > | 29 |
| Total FP INCONS | 85 | < | 87 |
| Total FP COMP | 31 | > | 21 |
| Total FN | 129 | < | 137 |
| P-value | 9.10329362739e-05 | ||
Performance plots
-
Comparison of performance of CRWrnafold 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 CRWrnafold and Cylofold).
-
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CRWrnafold 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 CRWrnafold and Cylofold).
Performance of CRWrnafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for CRWrnafold
| Total Base Pair Counts | |
|---|---|
| Total TP | 251 |
| Total TN | 18304 |
| Total FP | 150 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 34 |
| Total FP INCONS | 85 |
| Total FP COMP | 31 |
| Total FN | 129 |
| Total Scores | |
|---|---|
| MCC | 0.663 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.667 ± 0.152 |
| Sensitivity | 0.661 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.678 |
| Nr of predictions | 25 |
2. Individual counts for CRWrnafold [ download as .csv ]
| RNA Chain | Rfam family | MCC | SENS | PPV | TP | TN | FP | FP CONTRA | FP INCONS | FP COMP | FN |
| 2LC8_A | -0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 513 | 15 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 18 | |
| 2LDL_A | - | 0.94 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 8 | 132 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2LDT_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 11 | 151 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LI4_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 14 | 175 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LK3_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9 | 91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LKR_A | - | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.62 | 16 | 2414 | 13 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 |
| 2YIE_X | - | 0.53 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 4 | 536 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
| 2YIE_Z | - | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 587 | 15 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 8 |
| 3AMU_B | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 15 | 1137 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
| 3J0L_7 | - | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 506 | 13 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| 3J0L_g | - | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 174 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3J0L_h | - | 0.93 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 28 | 2112 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 3J0L_2 | - | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 8 | 2226 | 23 | 1 | 15 | 7 | 18 |
| 3J0L_1 | - | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 10 | 473 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| 3J0L_a | - | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 4 | 402 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| 3J16_L | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 21 | 1138 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3SD1_A | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 19 | 1502 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 10 | |
| 3SN2_B | 0.95 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 11 | 143 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 3TRZ_Z | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5 | 87 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3TS2_V | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5 | 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3U4M_B | - | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.46 | 12 | 1250 | 14 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 10 |
| 4A4U_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9 | 96 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4AOB_A | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 20 | 1410 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 | |
| 4ENB_A | 0.85 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 11 | 461 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | |
| 4ENC_A | 0.85 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 11 | 485 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold
| Total Base Pair Counts | |
|---|---|
| Total TP | 243 |
| Total TN | 18315 |
| Total FP | 137 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 29 |
| Total FP INCONS | 87 |
| Total FP COMP | 21 |
| Total FN | 137 |
| Total Scores | |
|---|---|
| MCC | 0.651 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.665 ± 0.131 |
| Sensitivity | 0.639 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.677 |
| Nr of predictions | 25 |
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 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 11 | 512 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 7 | |
| 2LDL_A | - | 0.81 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 6 | 134 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2LDT_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 11 | 151 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LI4_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 14 | 175 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LK3_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9 | 91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LKR_A | - | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 16 | 2412 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 13 |
| 2YIE_X | - | 0.43 | 0.57 | 0.33 | 4 | 532 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 |
| 2YIE_Z | - | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 591 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 8 |
| 3AMU_B | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 15 | 1137 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
| 3J0L_7 | - | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 5 | 505 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 5 |
| 3J0L_g | - | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 174 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3J0L_h | - | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.62 | 16 | 2114 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 16 |
| 3J0L_2 | - | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 12 | 2227 | 18 | 0 | 11 | 7 | 14 |
| 3J0L_1 | - | 0.73 | 0.62 | 0.89 | 8 | 475 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| 3J0L_a | - | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 2 | 401 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 9 |
| 3J16_L | 0.90 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 17 | 1142 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
| 3SD1_A | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 20 | 1506 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 9 | |
| 3SN2_B | 0.63 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 5 | 149 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | |
| 3TRZ_Z | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5 | 87 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 3TS2_V | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5 | 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3U4M_B | - | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.46 | 12 | 1250 | 14 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 10 |
| 4A4U_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9 | 96 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 |
Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.