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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST Cylofold
MCC 0.512 > 0.483
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.476 ± 0.128 < 0.499 ± 0.093
Sensitivity 0.380 < 0.401
Positive Predictive Value 0.696 > 0.590
Total TP 334 < 352
Total TN 113395 > 113278
Total FP 158 < 260
Total FP CONTRA 10 < 19
Total FP INCONS 136 < 226
Total FP COMP 12 < 15
Total FN 544 > 526
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Cylofold).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Cylofold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 334
Total TN 113395
Total FP 158
Total FP CONTRA 10
Total FP INCONS 136
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 544
Total Scores
MCC 0.512
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.476 ± 0.128
Sensitivity 0.380
Positive Predictive Value 0.696
Nr of predictions 27

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LA5_A - 0.46 0.26 0.83 5 624 1 0 1 0 14
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1529 11 0 11 0 20
2LKR_A - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6101 4 0 4 0 39
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1648 5 0 5 0 17
3AMU_B 0.82 0.70 0.95 19 2983 3 0 1 2 8
3J0L_7 - 0.60 0.41 0.88 7 1217 1 0 1 0 10
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1125 3 0 3 0 16
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.24 1.00 8 6208 0 0 0 0 25
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 465 0 0 0 0 4
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_0 0.35 0.37 0.34 11 2818 22 3 18 1 19
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2C_O - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 10296 0 0 0 0 63
3J2L_3 0.73 0.62 0.87 33 7837 7 0 5 2 20
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.64 0.45 0.90 19 3895 2 0 2 0 23
3U4M_B - 0.58 0.43 0.80 16 3140 4 0 4 0 21
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3W3S_B 0.85 0.73 1.00 29 4724 1 0 0 1 11
3ZEX_D 0.75 0.65 0.86 32 6984 5 0 5 0 17
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21914 33 1 30 2 77
3ZND_W 0.47 0.39 0.56 9 2987 10 0 7 3 14
4AOB_A 0.71 0.50 1.00 21 4350 1 0 0 1 21
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1315 0 0 0 0 8
4FRG_B 0.41 0.41 0.43 13 3456 17 3 14 0 19
4FRN_A 0.36 0.39 0.34 14 5110 27 3 24 0 22

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 352
Total TN 113278
Total FP 260
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 226
Total FP COMP 15
Total FN 526
Total Scores
MCC 0.483
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.499 ± 0.093
Sensitivity 0.401
Positive Predictive Value 0.590
Nr of predictions 27

^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
2LA5_A - 0.46 0.26 0.83 5 624 1 0 1 0 14
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LKR_A - 0.50 0.44 0.59 17 6076 12 2 10 0 22
2M58_A - 0.51 0.41 0.64 7 1642 4 1 3 0 10
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3J0L_7 - 0.30 0.29 0.33 5 1210 10 0 10 0 12
3J0L_a - 0.22 0.19 0.27 3 1117 8 1 7 0 13
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 1 4 1 13
3J20_1 0.69 0.70 0.70 16 2903 7 2 5 0 7
3J2C_O - 0.43 0.33 0.55 21 10258 18 0 17 1 42
3J2L_3 0.56 0.43 0.72 23 7843 11 0 9 2 30
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.62 0.50 0.78 21 3889 6 0 6 0 21
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.45 0.38 0.54 14 3544 12 1 11 0 23
3W3S_B 0.44 0.38 0.52 15 4724 15 0 14 1 25
3ZEX_D 0.58 0.49 0.69 24 6986 11 0 11 0 25
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21897 51 2 46 3 77
3ZND_W 0.40 0.39 0.41 9 2981 15 2 11 2 14
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ENB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1260 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4
4FRG_B 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 3465 0 0 0 0 11
4FRN_A 0.20 0.14 0.31 5 5135 11 2 9 0 31

^top


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