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 Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Cylofold & Vsfold5 [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Cylofold Vsfold5
MCC 0.669 > 0.573
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.663 ± 0.123 > 0.566 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.648 > 0.568
Positive Predictive Value 0.700 > 0.591
Total TP 282 > 247
Total TN 27820 > 27805
Total FP 145 < 192
Total FP CONTRA 41 < 60
Total FP INCONS 80 < 111
Total FP COMP 24 > 21
Total FN 153 < 188
P-value 2.10198558684e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Cylofold and Vsfold5. 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 Vsfold5).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Cylofold and Vsfold5. 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 Vsfold5).

^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 Vsfold5 - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Vsfold5

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 247
Total TN 27805
Total FP 192
Total FP CONTRA 60
Total FP INCONS 111
Total FP COMP 21
Total FN 188
Total Scores
MCC 0.573
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.566 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.568
Positive Predictive Value 0.591
Nr of predictions 19

^top



2. Individual counts for Vsfold5 [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.71 0.78 0.64 18 1996 13 8 2 3 5
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 515 13 0 13 0 18
2M58_A - 0.37 0.33 0.44 4 535 5 4 1 0 8
3ADB_C - 0.72 0.61 0.87 20 1796 3 0 3 0 13
3J0L_a - 0.39 0.36 0.44 4 402 6 4 1 1 7
3J20_0 0.76 0.76 0.76 16 1198 6 3 2 1 5
3NKB_B - 0.69 0.74 0.67 14 714 7 0 7 0 5
3O58_3 0.51 0.59 0.45 13 4735 28 11 5 12 9
3PDR_A 0.69 0.64 0.74 32 4797 13 3 8 2 18
3RKF_A 0.90 0.92 0.88 22 841 3 3 0 0 2
3SD1_A 0.13 0.14 0.15 4 1507 22 5 17 0 25
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3W3S_B 0.83 0.85 0.82 28 1955 7 2 4 1 5
4AOB_A 0.21 0.21 0.25 6 1413 19 2 16 1 23
4ATO_G - 0.67 0.86 0.55 6 209 5 5 0 0 1
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 0.60 0.58 0.64 14 1180 8 3 5 0 10
4FRN_A 0.15 0.14 0.17 4 1825 19 3 16 0 24

^top


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