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 ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for ContextFold & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric ContextFold Cylofold
MCC 0.683 > 0.603
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.621 ± 0.215 < 0.628 ± 0.180
Sensitivity 0.638 > 0.583
Positive Predictive Value 0.743 > 0.640
Total TP 150 > 137
Total TN 11440 > 11428
Total FP 56 < 81
Total FP CONTRA 16 < 25
Total FP INCONS 36 < 52
Total FP COMP 4 = 4
Total FN 85 < 98
P-value 1.66062906821e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of ContextFold 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 ContextFold and Cylofold).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold 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 ContextFold and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 150
Total TN 11440
Total FP 56
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 36
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 85
Total Scores
MCC 0.683
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.621 ± 0.215
Sensitivity 0.638
Positive Predictive Value 0.743
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for ContextFold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.58 0.56 0.63 10 512 6 0 6 0 8
2M58_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 530 14 3 11 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.80 0.73 0.89 8 402 2 0 1 1 3
3J20_0 0.95 0.95 0.95 20 1198 2 1 0 1 1
3U4M_B - 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1255 0 0 0 0 1
3W3S_B 0.87 0.85 0.90 28 1958 4 0 3 1 5
4AOB_A 0.62 0.59 0.68 17 1412 9 2 6 1 12
4ATO_G - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 218 2 1 1 0 7
4ENB_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 9 463 0 0 0 0 6
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.77 0.71 0.85 17 1182 3 2 1 0 7
4FRN_A 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 1824 13 6 7 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 137
Total TN 11428
Total FP 81
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 52
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 98
Total Scores
MCC 0.603
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.628 ± 0.180
Sensitivity 0.583
Positive Predictive Value 0.640
Nr of predictions 12

^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
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 1 4 0 7
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
3J0L_a - 0.17 0.18 0.20 2 401 9 3 5 1 9
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.48 0.45 0.52 15 1960 15 1 13 1 18
4AOB_A 0.42 0.38 0.48 11 1414 13 3 9 1 18
4ATO_G - 0.88 1.00 0.78 7 211 2 2 0 0 0
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


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