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 RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.466 > 0.454
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.496 ± 0.100 > 0.431 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.390 > 0.373
Positive Predictive Value 0.565 > 0.559
Total TP 305 > 292
Total TN 104698 < 104716
Total FP 248 > 242
Total FP CONTRA 20 > 19
Total FP INCONS 215 > 211
Total FP COMP 13 > 12
Total FN 477 < 490
P-value 1.24386558293e-07

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Cylofold and RNASLOpt).

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher 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



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 292
Total TN 104716
Total FP 242
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 211
Total FP COMP 12
Total FN 490
Total Scores
MCC 0.454
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.431 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.373
Positive Predictive Value 0.559
Nr of predictions 25

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.47 0.35 0.64 7 1529 4 0 4 0 13
2LKR_A - 0.68 0.62 0.75 24 6073 9 0 8 1 15
2M58_A - 0.32 0.24 0.44 4 1644 5 1 4 0 13
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_a - 0.26 0.19 0.38 3 1120 5 1 4 0 13
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J16_L 0.53 0.40 0.71 12 2758 5 0 5 0 18
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 1 4 1 13
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J2C_O - 0.62 0.49 0.78 31 10256 10 0 9 1 32
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 0.48 0.32 0.71 12 3553 5 0 5 0 25
3W3S_B 0.82 0.70 0.97 28 4724 2 0 1 1 12
3ZEX_E - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 21892 55 4 49 2 77
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.59 0.97 29 6991 1 0 1 0 20
3ZND_W 0.21 0.22 0.22 5 2980 20 1 17 2 18
4AOB_A 0.26 0.19 0.38 8 4350 13 2 11 0 34
4ATO_G - 0.30 0.30 0.33 3 519 6 2 4 0 7
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4FNJ_A - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 584 11 0 11 0 16
4FRG_B 0.56 0.47 0.68 15 3464 7 1 6 0 17
4FRN_A 0.20 0.17 0.26 6 5128 17 2 15 0 30

^top


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