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 McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric McQFold Cylofold
MCC 0.720 > 0.669
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.676 ± 0.142 > 0.663 ± 0.123
Sensitivity 0.706 > 0.648
Positive Predictive Value 0.743 > 0.700
Total TP 307 > 282
Total TN 27810 < 27820
Total FP 126 < 145
Total FP CONTRA 41 = 41
Total FP INCONS 65 < 80
Total FP COMP 20 < 24
Total FN 128 < 153
P-value 3.27388928538e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of McQFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for McQFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 307
Total TN 27810
Total FP 126
Total FP CONTRA 41
Total FP INCONS 65
Total FP COMP 20
Total FN 128
Total Scores
MCC 0.720
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.676 ± 0.142
Sensitivity 0.706
Positive Predictive Value 0.743
Nr of predictions 19

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.75 0.83 0.68 19 1996 15 7 2 6 4
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 5 1 3 1 5
3ADB_C - 0.98 0.97 1.00 32 1787 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J20_0 0.74 0.76 0.73 16 1197 7 3 3 1 5
3NKB_B - 0.42 0.42 0.44 8 717 10 2 8 0 11
3O58_3 0.30 0.36 0.25 8 4732 27 15 9 3 14
3PDR_A 0.83 0.80 0.87 40 4794 9 2 4 3 10
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 1 4 0 5
3U4M_B - 0.95 0.91 1.00 20 1256 2 0 0 2 2
3W3S_B 0.49 0.45 0.54 15 1961 14 1 12 1 18
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
4ATO_G - -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 215 5 0 5 0 7
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 0.82 0.71 0.95 20 1827 1 1 0 0 8

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower 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


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