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 MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold MCFold
MCC 0.678 > 0.512
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.148 > 0.478 ± 0.142
Sensitivity 0.659 > 0.543
Positive Predictive Value 0.706 > 0.497
Total TP 209 > 172
Total TN 20658 > 20608
Total FP 101 < 206
Total FP CONTRA 33 = 33
Total FP INCONS 54 < 141
Total FP COMP 14 < 32
Total FN 108 < 145
P-value 2.30549897711e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 209
Total TN 20658
Total FP 101
Total FP CONTRA 33
Total FP INCONS 54
Total FP COMP 14
Total FN 108
Total Scores
MCC 0.678
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.667 ± 0.148
Sensitivity 0.659
Positive Predictive Value 0.706
Nr of predictions 15

^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
3NKB_B - 0.46 0.42 0.53 8 720 7 0 7 0 11
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
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
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



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 172
Total TN 20608
Total FP 206
Total FP CONTRA 33
Total FP INCONS 141
Total FP COMP 32
Total FN 145
Total Scores
MCC 0.512
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.478 ± 0.142
Sensitivity 0.543
Positive Predictive Value 0.497
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
2M58_A - 0.22 0.25 0.23 3 531 13 1 9 3 9
3J0L_a - 0.14 0.18 0.15 2 398 13 1 10 2 9
3J20_0 0.66 0.71 0.63 15 1195 11 3 6 2 6
3NKB_B - 0.68 0.74 0.64 14 713 8 2 6 0 5
3O58_3 0.28 0.36 0.22 8 4727 39 14 15 10 14
3PDR_A 0.78 0.80 0.77 40 4788 14 5 7 2 10
3RKF_A 0.89 0.88 0.91 21 843 3 0 2 1 3
3SD1_A 0.43 0.45 0.43 13 1503 17 1 16 0 16
3U4M_B - 0.74 0.77 0.71 17 1252 10 1 6 3 5
4ATO_G - 0.36 0.43 0.33 3 211 8 0 6 2 4
4ENB_A 0.78 0.73 0.85 11 459 4 0 2 2 4
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10
4FRG_B 0.35 0.38 0.35 9 1176 17 3 14 0 15
4FRN_A 0.09 0.11 0.10 3 1818 28 2 25 1 25

^top


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