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 MXScarna(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(seed) Cylofold
MCC 0.677 > 0.617
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.644 ± 0.091 < 0.647 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.568 > 0.527
Positive Predictive Value 0.811 > 0.729
Total TP 532 > 493
Total TN 118177 > 118157
Total FP 159 < 212
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 25
Total FP INCONS 106 < 158
Total FP COMP 35 > 29
Total FN 404 < 443
P-value 5.10776592382e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  2. Comparison of performance of MXScarna(seed) 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 MXScarna(seed) and Cylofold).

  3. 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 MXScarna(seed) and Cylofold).

  4. 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 MXScarna(seed) and Cylofold).

  5. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MXScarna(seed) 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 MXScarna(seed) and Cylofold).

  6. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MXScarna(seed) 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 MXScarna(seed) and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of MXScarna(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 532
Total TN 118177
Total FP 159
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 106
Total FP COMP 35
Total FN 404
Total Scores
MCC 0.677
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.644 ± 0.091
Sensitivity 0.568
Positive Predictive Value 0.811
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KX8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 859 2 0 2 0 18
2L1F_A 0.91 0.88 0.95 21 2058 1 0 1 0 3
2L1F_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 23 2122 0 0 0 0 2
2L94_A 0.57 0.55 0.61 11 972 7 0 7 0 9
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1530 12 0 10 2 20
2XKV_B 0.59 0.55 0.65 11 4543 18 0 6 12 9
2XQD_Y 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2830 2 0 2 0 9
2XXA_G 0.67 0.57 0.80 24 5121 7 0 6 1 18
3AKZ_H 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2680 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.84 0.70 1.00 19 2984 1 0 0 1 8
3IZF_C 0.67 0.57 0.79 31 6864 9 1 7 1 23
3J16_L 0.82 0.67 1.00 20 2755 0 0 0 0 10
3J20_0 0.79 0.63 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 11
3J20_1 0.93 0.87 1.00 20 2906 0 0 0 0 3
3J2L_3 0.60 0.49 0.74 26 7840 11 1 8 2 27
3O58_2 0.79 0.79 0.79 30 7222 10 4 4 2 8
3O58_3 0.45 0.34 0.60 12 12383 19 2 6 11 23
3PDR_A 0.73 0.63 0.87 45 12828 9 2 5 2 27
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.63 0.55 0.74 23 3885 8 1 7 0 19
3UZL_B 0.66 0.49 0.90 18 3550 2 1 1 0 19
3W3S_B 0.69 0.60 0.80 24 4723 6 0 6 0 16
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.69 0.83 34 6980 7 1 6 0 15
4AOB_A 0.66 0.55 0.79 23 4342 7 0 6 1 19
4ENB_A 0.48 0.32 0.75 6 1267 2 0 2 0 13
4ENC_A 0.43 0.32 0.60 6 1316 4 1 3 0 13
4FRG_B 0.41 0.31 0.56 10 3468 8 2 6 0 22
4FRN_A 0.62 0.53 0.73 19 5125 7 2 5 0 17

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 493
Total TN 118157
Total FP 212
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 158
Total FP COMP 29
Total FN 443
Total Scores
MCC 0.617
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.647 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.527
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 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2L1F_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 2060 0 0 0 0 4
2L1F_B 0.92 0.84 1.00 21 2124 0 0 0 0 4
2L94_A 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2XKV_B 0.38 0.40 0.36 8 4538 23 7 7 9 12
2XQD_Y 0.81 0.78 0.84 21 2825 4 4 0 0 6
2XXA_G 0.10 0.10 0.11 4 5115 32 1 31 0 38
3AKZ_H 0.66 0.57 0.76 16 2680 6 0 5 1 12
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3IZF_C 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 6867 6 0 6 0 24
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 1 4 1 13
3J20_1 0.69 0.70 0.70 16 2903 7 2 5 0 7
3J2L_3 0.56 0.43 0.72 23 7843 11 0 9 2 30
3O58_2 0.80 0.68 0.93 26 7232 3 0 2 1 12
3O58_3 0.36 0.34 0.38 12 12371 29 5 15 9 23
3PDR_A 0.72 0.54 0.95 39 12839 4 0 2 2 33
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.62 0.50 0.78 21 3889 6 0 6 0 21
3UZL_B 0.45 0.38 0.54 14 3544 12 1 11 0 23
3W3S_B 0.44 0.38 0.52 15 4724 15 0 14 1 25
3ZEX_D 0.58 0.49 0.69 24 6986 11 0 11 0 25
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ENB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1260 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4
4FRG_B 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 3465 0 0 0 0 11
4FRN_A 0.20 0.14 0.31 5 5135 11 2 9 0 31

^top


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