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 MXScarna(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric MXScarna(20) RNAsubopt
MCC 0.703 > 0.620
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.698 ± 0.114 > 0.610 ± 0.161
Sensitivity 0.659 > 0.632
Positive Predictive Value 0.755 > 0.615
Total TP 299 > 287
Total TN 51867 > 51796
Total FP 147 < 222
Total FP CONTRA 49 < 66
Total FP INCONS 48 < 114
Total FP COMP 50 > 42
Total FN 155 < 167
P-value 2.48055519165e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MXScarna(20) and RNAsubopt. 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 MXScarna(20) and RNAsubopt).

  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 MXScarna(20) and RNAsubopt).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MXScarna(20) and RNAsubopt. 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 MXScarna(20) and RNAsubopt).

^top





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

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 299
Total TN 51867
Total FP 147
Total FP CONTRA 49
Total FP INCONS 48
Total FP COMP 50
Total FN 155
Total Scores
MCC 0.703
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.698 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.659
Positive Predictive Value 0.755
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3A2K_C 0.74 0.73 0.76 16 1087 6 1 4 1 6
3GX2_A 0.81 0.79 0.85 22 1423 6 2 2 2 6
3IVN_B 0.81 0.74 0.89 17 884 2 2 0 0 6
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.54 0.63 51 25455 35 18 12 5 44
3JYV_7 0.95 0.90 1.00 18 1093 2 0 0 2 2
3LA5_A 0.87 0.80 0.95 20 933 1 1 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.77 0.73 0.82 27 2245 9 2 4 3 10
3O58_3 0.62 0.59 0.65 13 4744 18 5 2 11 9
3PDR_A 0.85 0.82 0.89 41 4794 9 2 3 4 9
3RKF_A 0.86 0.75 1.00 18 848 0 0 0 0 6
3SD1_A 0.74 0.76 0.73 22 1503 9 6 2 1 7
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.21 5 4492 36 8 11 17 15
4AOB_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1408 13 2 7 4 9
4ENB_A 0.29 0.13 0.67 2 469 1 0 1 0 13
4ENC_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 489 0 0 0 0 8

^top



Performance of RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 287
Total TN 51796
Total FP 222
Total FP CONTRA 66
Total FP INCONS 114
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 167
Total Scores
MCC 0.620
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.610 ± 0.161
Sensitivity 0.632
Positive Predictive Value 0.615
Nr of predictions 15

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3GX2_A 0.53 0.54 0.54 15 1421 14 4 9 1 13
3IVN_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 18 885 0 0 0 0 5
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.53 57 25429 54 26 24 4 38
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1090 21 4 17 0 20
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.84 0.78 0.91 29 2246 8 0 3 5 8
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.90 0.90 0.90 45 4790 7 2 3 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10

^top


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