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 RNAshapes - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold RNAshapes
MCC 0.669 > 0.627
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.123 > 0.592 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.648 > 0.625
Positive Predictive Value 0.700 > 0.640
Total TP 282 > 272
Total TN 27820 > 27798
Total FP 145 < 189
Total FP CONTRA 41 > 39
Total FP INCONS 80 < 114
Total FP COMP 24 < 36
Total FN 153 < 163
P-value 2.57237423209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 282
Total TN 27820
Total FP 145
Total FP CONTRA 41
Total FP INCONS 80
Total FP COMP 24
Total FN 153
Total Scores
MCC 0.669
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.648
Positive Predictive Value 0.700
Nr of predictions 19

^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
2KRL_A - 0.85 0.87 0.83 20 2000 12 4 0 8 3
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
3ADB_C - 0.84 0.82 0.87 27 1788 4 0 4 0 6
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
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



Performance of RNAshapes - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAshapes

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 272
Total TN 27798
Total FP 189
Total FP CONTRA 39
Total FP INCONS 114
Total FP COMP 36
Total FN 163
Total Scores
MCC 0.627
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.592 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.625
Positive Predictive Value 0.640
Nr of predictions 19

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 2003 9 1 0 8 3
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 0 5 0 7
2M58_A - 0.40 0.42 0.42 5 532 7 1 6 0 7
3ADB_C - 0.71 0.70 0.74 23 1788 8 0 8 0 10
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.18 0.22 2 402 8 3 4 1 9
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.75 0.74 0.78 14 717 6 0 4 2 5
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 38 6 15 17 11
3PDR_A 0.80 0.80 0.80 40 4790 12 3 7 2 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.77 0.76 0.79 22 1505 6 4 2 0 7
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.60 0.58 0.63 19 1959 12 2 9 1 14
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ATO_G - 0.38 0.43 0.38 3 212 5 5 0 0 4
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10
4FRG_B 0.36 0.38 0.38 9 1178 15 2 13 0 15
4FRN_A 0.59 0.57 0.62 16 1822 10 2 8 0 12

^top


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