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 TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(20) & Cylofold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(20) Cylofold
MCC 0.693 > 0.628
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.692 ± 0.085 > 0.653 ± 0.107
Sensitivity 0.562 > 0.529
Positive Predictive Value 0.860 > 0.751
Total TP 221 > 208
Total TN 43006 > 42986
Total FP 45 < 77
Total FP CONTRA 4 < 7
Total FP INCONS 32 < 62
Total FP COMP 9 > 8
Total FN 172 < 185
P-value 1.74172190343e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(20) 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 TurboFold(20) 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 TurboFold(20) and Cylofold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(20) 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 TurboFold(20) and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 221
Total TN 43006
Total FP 45
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 32
Total FP COMP 9
Total FN 172
Total Scores
MCC 0.693
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.692 ± 0.085
Sensitivity 0.562
Positive Predictive Value 0.860
Nr of predictions 12

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3J20_1 0.96 0.91 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 2
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 0 5 1 13
3J2L_3 0.74 0.58 0.94 31 7842 5 0 2 3 22
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 20 3889 7 1 6 0 22
3ZEX_D 0.76 0.63 0.91 31 6987 3 0 3 0 18
3ZND_W 0.43 0.39 0.47 9 2984 12 1 9 2 14
4AOB_A 0.56 0.40 0.77 17 4349 6 1 4 1 25
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
4FRG_B 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 3465 0 0 0 0 11

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 208
Total TN 42986
Total FP 77
Total FP CONTRA 7
Total FP INCONS 62
Total FP COMP 8
Total FN 185
Total Scores
MCC 0.628
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.653 ± 0.107
Sensitivity 0.529
Positive Predictive Value 0.751
Nr of predictions 12

^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
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3J20_1 0.69 0.70 0.70 16 2903 7 2 5 0 7
3J20_0 0.66 0.57 0.77 17 2828 6 1 4 1 13
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
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
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

^top


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