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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold CentroidHomfold‑LAST
MCC 0.632 > 0.597
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.637 ± 0.166 > 0.543 ± 0.224
Sensitivity 0.605 > 0.573
Positive Predictive Value 0.675 > 0.639
Total TP 170 > 161
Total TN 13569 = 13569
Total FP 86 < 95
Total FP CONTRA 25 < 26
Total FP INCONS 57 < 65
Total FP COMP 4 = 4
Total FN 111 < 120
P-value 1.79286688101e-07

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Cylofold and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Cylofold and CentroidHomfold-LAST. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST).

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 170
Total TN 13569
Total FP 86
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 57
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 111
Total Scores
MCC 0.632
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.637 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.605
Positive Predictive Value 0.675
Nr of predictions 13

^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
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
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
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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 161
Total TN 13569
Total FP 95
Total FP CONTRA 26
Total FP INCONS 65
Total FP COMP 4
Total FN 120
Total Scores
MCC 0.597
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.543 ± 0.224
Sensitivity 0.573
Positive Predictive Value 0.639
Nr of predictions 13

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ 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 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 539 5 0 5 0 12
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 408 3 1 2 0 11
3J20_0 0.41 0.52 0.34 11 1187 22 7 14 1 10
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.77 0.66 0.90 19 1512 2 1 1 0 10
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
3W3S_B 0.94 0.88 1.00 29 1960 1 0 0 1 4
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4
4FRG_B 0.43 0.50 0.40 12 1172 18 6 12 0 12
4FRN_A 0.37 0.46 0.32 13 1807 28 11 17 0 15

^top


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