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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold UNAFold
MCC 0.669 > 0.634
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.123 > 0.593 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.648 > 0.637
Positive Predictive Value 0.700 > 0.643
Total TP 282 > 277
Total TN 27820 > 27792
Total FP 145 < 185
Total FP CONTRA 41 < 43
Total FP INCONS 80 < 111
Total FP COMP 24 < 31
Total FN 153 < 158
P-value 3.13260312532e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^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 UNAFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 277
Total TN 27792
Total FP 185
Total FP CONTRA 43
Total FP INCONS 111
Total FP COMP 31
Total FN 158
Total Scores
MCC 0.634
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.593 ± 0.119
Sensitivity 0.637
Positive Predictive Value 0.643
Nr of predictions 19

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ 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 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2M58_A - 0.60 0.58 0.64 7 533 4 1 3 0 5
3ADB_C - 0.86 0.85 0.88 28 1787 4 0 4 0 5
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3J20_0 0.51 0.57 0.48 12 1194 14 3 10 1 9
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3O58_3 0.42 0.50 0.35 11 4733 34 5 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.93 0.92 0.94 46 4791 5 1 2 2 4
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 0.61 0.61 0.63 20 1957 13 4 8 1 13
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 0.48 0.46 0.52 13 1823 12 2 10 0 15

^top


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