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 ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric ContextFold Cylofold
MCC 0.595 > 0.466
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.552 ± 0.130 > 0.496 ± 0.100
Sensitivity 0.491 > 0.390
Positive Predictive Value 0.726 > 0.565
Total TP 384 > 305
Total TN 104709 > 104698
Total FP 157 < 248
Total FP CONTRA 14 < 20
Total FP INCONS 131 < 215
Total FP COMP 12 < 13
Total FN 398 < 477
P-value 5.10776592382e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for ContextFold 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 ContextFold and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of ContextFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for ContextFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 384
Total TN 104709
Total FP 157
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 131
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 398
Total Scores
MCC 0.595
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.552 ± 0.130
Sensitivity 0.491
Positive Predictive Value 0.726
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.55 0.50 0.63 10 1524 6 0 6 0 10
2LKR_A - 0.65 0.56 0.76 22 6076 9 0 7 2 17
2M58_A - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1639 14 0 14 0 17
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.64 0.61 0.69 20 6187 11 2 7 2 13
3J0L_a - 0.71 0.56 0.90 9 1118 1 0 1 0 7
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 462 3 1 2 0 4
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3J20_0 0.84 0.70 1.00 21 2829 1 0 0 1 9
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2C_O - 0.83 0.70 1.00 44 10252 1 0 0 1 19
3J2L_3 0.79 0.62 1.00 33 7842 2 0 0 2 20
3U4M_B - 0.75 0.57 1.00 21 3139 0 0 0 0 16
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3W3S_B 0.79 0.70 0.90 28 4722 4 0 3 1 12
3ZEX_E - 0.08 0.06 0.10 5 21896 44 5 39 0 72
3ZEX_D 0.81 0.67 0.97 33 6987 1 0 1 0 16
3ZND_W 0.21 0.22 0.22 5 2980 20 0 18 2 18
4AOB_A 0.52 0.40 0.68 17 4346 9 1 7 1 25
4ATO_G - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 526 2 0 2 0 10
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FNJ_A - 0.79 0.63 1.00 10 585 0 0 0 0 6
4FRG_B 0.71 0.56 0.90 18 3466 2 1 1 0 14
4FRN_A 0.40 0.33 0.50 12 5127 12 3 9 0 24

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 305
Total TN 104698
Total FP 248
Total FP CONTRA 20
Total FP INCONS 215
Total FP COMP 13
Total FN 477
Total Scores
MCC 0.466
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.496 ± 0.100
Sensitivity 0.390
Positive Predictive Value 0.565
Nr of predictions 25

^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
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
3J0L_7 - 0.30 0.29 0.33 5 1210 10 0 10 0 12
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_a - 0.22 0.19 0.27 3 1117 8 1 7 0 13
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
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_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21897 51 2 46 3 77
3ZEX_D 0.58 0.49 0.69 24 6986 11 0 11 0 25
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
4ATO_G - 0.73 0.70 0.78 7 519 2 1 1 0 3
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
4FNJ_A - 0.70 0.50 1.00 8 587 0 0 0 0 8
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.