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 CMfinder(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold CMfinder(20)
MCC 0.754 > 0.652
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.768 ± 0.179 > 0.662 ± 0.224
Sensitivity 0.737 > 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.778 < 0.831
Total TP 84 > 59
Total TN 8129 < 8166
Total FP 29 > 16
Total FP CONTRA 8 > 3
Total FP INCONS 16 > 9
Total FP COMP 5 > 4
Total FN 30 < 55
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of performance of Cylofold and CMfinder(20). 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 CMfinder(20)).

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

  4. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Cylofold and CMfinder(20). 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 CMfinder(20)).

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 84
Total TN 8129
Total FP 29
Total FP CONTRA 8
Total FP INCONS 16
Total FP COMP 5
Total FN 30
Total Scores
MCC 0.754
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.768 ± 0.179
Sensitivity 0.737
Positive Predictive Value 0.778
Nr of predictions 4

^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
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J2L_3 0.71 0.68 0.74 23 2989 11 0 8 3 11
3ZEX_D 0.69 0.69 0.71 24 2762 11 5 5 1 11
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3

^top



Performance of CMfinder(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 59
Total TN 8166
Total FP 16
Total FP CONTRA 3
Total FP INCONS 9
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 55
Total Scores
MCC 0.652
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.662 ± 0.224
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.831
Nr of predictions 4

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3J20_0 0.84 0.76 0.94 16 1202 2 1 0 1 5
3J2L_3 0.57 0.50 0.65 17 2994 11 2 7 2 17
3ZEX_D 0.70 0.54 0.90 19 2775 3 0 2 1 16
4FRG_B 0.54 0.29 1.00 7 1195 0 0 0 0 17

^top


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