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 Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold Mastr(seed)
MCC 0.706 > 0.260
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.725 ± 0.096 > 0.071 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.693 > 0.068
Positive Predictive Value 0.729 < 1.000
Total TP 476 > 47
Total TN 44890 < 45496
Total FP 229 > 0
Total FP CONTRA 54 > 0
Total FP INCONS 123 > 0
Total FP COMP 52 > 0
Total FN 211 < 640
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Cylofold and Mastr(seed). 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 Mastr(seed)).

  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 Cylofold and Mastr(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Cylofold and Mastr(seed). 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 Mastr(seed)).

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 476
Total TN 44890
Total FP 229
Total FP CONTRA 54
Total FP INCONS 123
Total FP COMP 52
Total FN 211
Total Scores
MCC 0.706
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.725 ± 0.096
Sensitivity 0.693
Positive Predictive Value 0.729
Nr of predictions 28

^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
2KX8_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 355 0 0 0 0 0
2L1F_A 0.93 0.87 1.00 20 743 0 0 0 0 3
2L1F_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 770 0 0 0 0 3
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2XKV_B 0.41 0.55 0.32 6 1816 25 9 4 12 5
2XQD_Y 0.89 0.95 0.83 20 1105 5 4 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.10 0.11 0.11 4 2009 32 2 30 0 31
3AKZ_H 0.77 0.75 0.79 15 1108 7 0 4 3 5
3AMU_B 0.77 0.79 0.75 15 1137 8 0 5 3 4
3IZF_C 0.85 0.83 0.88 29 2607 7 0 4 3 6
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3J20_1 0.71 0.75 0.68 15 1090 8 2 5 1 5
3J2L_3 0.71 0.68 0.74 23 2989 11 0 8 3 11
3O58_2 0.90 0.84 0.96 26 2727 3 0 1 2 5
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 30 9 11 10 11
3PDR_A 0.86 0.78 0.95 39 4799 4 1 1 2 11
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.71 0.69 0.74 20 1506 7 2 5 0 9
3UZL_B 0.45 0.50 0.42 8 1274 18 4 7 7 8
3W3S_B 0.48 0.45 0.52 15 1960 15 1 13 1 18
3ZEX_D 0.69 0.69 0.71 24 2762 11 5 5 1 11
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
4FRG_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 21 1181 0 0 0 0 3
4FRN_A 0.23 0.18 0.31 5 1832 11 7 4 0 23

^top



Performance of Mastr(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Mastr(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 47
Total TN 45496
Total FP 0
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 0
Total FN 640
Total Scores
MCC 0.260
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.071 ± 0.102
Sensitivity 0.068
Positive Predictive Value 1.000
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 371 0 0 0 0 16
2L1F_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 23 740 0 0 0 0 0
2L1F_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 767 0 0 0 0 0
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 357 0 0 0 0 18
2LC8_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 528 0 0 0 0 18
2XKV_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1835 0 0 0 0 11
2XQD_Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1129 0 0 0 0 21
2XXA_G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2045 0 0 0 0 35
3AKZ_H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1127 0 0 0 0 20
3AMU_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1157 0 0 0 0 19
3IZF_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2640 0 0 0 0 35
3J16_L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1159 0 0 0 0 21
3J20_0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1219 0 0 0 0 21
3J20_1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1112 0 0 0 0 20
3J2L_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3020 0 0 0 0 34
3O58_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2754 0 0 0 0 31
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
3UZL_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1293 0 0 0 0 16
3W3S_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1989 0 0 0 0 33
3ZEX_D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2796 0 0 0 0 35
4AOB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1437 0 0 0 0 29
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15
4FRG_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1202 0 0 0 0 24
4FRN_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1848 0 0 0 0 28

^top


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